Higher Education: Participation

Lord Paul: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the light of recently published key performance indicators for universities, whether their policies have been effective in widening participation and achieving greater social inclusion.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, performance indicators for higher education show a history of under-participation by some parts of the community. This must change. We have made widening participation central to our vision for the future of higher education. To this end, we recently announced the Excellence Challenge for a £150 programme to enable schools, colleges and universities to encourage applications from disadvantaged young people who have the potential for higher education. We have also put in place a substantial package of support for mature and part-time students.

Lord Paul: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very encouraging reply. I declare my interest here as Chancellor of Wolverhampton University, which has an excellent record of widening participation and has exceeded all the bench-marks. Universities that provide opportunities for disadvantaged groups have experienced an increase in withdrawals, and students are suffering financial hardship. With the abolition of maintenance grants and the introduction of fees, many students, especially those from the minority communities, now combine full-time study with near full-time work, while others experience the burden of debts. Can my noble friend say whether these policies are consistent with the desire to provide equality of opportunity for all the benefits to be derived from higher education?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am well aware that Wolverhampton University has an excellent record of widening participation in this respect. Indeed, I congratulate the university on that fact. However, if we take universities as a whole, there has not actually been a deterrent effect: there has been an increase of over 6,000 students--nearly 2 per cent--being accepted for entry this autumn, as compared with last year. As far as concerns the effect of fees, my noble friend will be aware that we raised the threshold for relief from fees so that, now, 50 per cent of all students, including, I believe, all of those to whom he refers, do not pay fees.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will know that there has been a reduction in applications to Cambridge University this year, which may well be as a result of the remarks made last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In response to a Question on 7th June of this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the Government had no intention whatever of using funding in order to interfere with admissions to university. Therefore, does the noble Lord agree that expecting universities to set targets for their admissions in return for funding is in fact illegal under the higher education legislation of 1992?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the noble Baroness's first point, I can say that there has been a reduction in admissions to Cambridge. However, there has been an increase in admissions to Oxford, which rather diminishes the value of the noble Baroness's point about the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to the issue of interference in selection processes, there has never been--indeed, there is no intention--to interfere with the selection process. The Excellence Challenge programme has more than half of its expenditure in schools and FE colleges. It is designed to increase applications rather than to influence the selection procedure. Universities are happy with that and are content to collaborate with the system, because it is clearly to their advantage.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to remark that inverted snobbery can be just as destructive as old-fashioned snobbery. The question here is more about Robbins' vision of helping to transmit a common culture in universities. In their possible review of these key performance indicators, which are not working as well as they should be, would the Government care to look at that original vision rather than at education as conveying a series of mechanical skills?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree with the right reverend Prelate about what Robbins said. Indeed, when I considered the way in which this Government are approaching the issue, I was reminded of Robbins' original words, which assumed, as an axiom, that courses of higher education should be available for all those who were qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wished to do so. I believe that that expresses better than government these days the fundamental principle behind our approach to universities and to widening access to them.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the two main deterrents to participation in higher education by those from less advantaged backgrounds are cost and lack of appropriate qualifications? Is he also aware that only 800 students from social class five acquired 21 A-level points last year? If the Government are really anxious to encourage participation by such people, is it really sensible for them, first, not to extend the right to free tuition up to A-level equivalent qualifications for 19 to 24 year-olds, instead of just up to the age of 19; and, secondly, is it right to exclude part-time students from most of the schemes aimed at helping mature students meet the cost of studying? Finally, are both sides of the DfEE really working to the same agenda?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear that a very substantial part of the Excellence Challenge programme is devoted to the exact aims that the noble Baroness wishes to promote. Indeed, we entirely agree with her. As for part-time students, when we introduced tuition fees in the first instance the House will recall that part of the deal was that there would be substantial additional funding for mature students and for part-time students. Both groups have been made eligible for loans as part of that deal.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in the past 10 years universities have dramatically increased the participation in higher education of mature and part-time students, as well as women and ethnic minorities? In declaring an interest as the chief executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, I draw to the attention of the House the concordat recently signed between representative bodies of universities and schools. Does the Minister agree that one of the key issues is raising the aspirations of state educated children who currently do not apply?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that one of the most important things--in fact, probably the most important thing--is to raise the aspirations of those in state schools who do not currently apply. I congratulate the noble Baroness and her organisation on the concordat. But we must get away from the idea that the Government are trying to impose targets. What we are doing is indicating bench marks against which the universities can judge their success in attracting applications from a wider range of potential students.

Barristers' Fees

Lord Clinton-Davis: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any drain of talent from family and criminal work at the Bar is likely following the Lord Chancellor's proposals for criminal and family legal aid.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a timely and important Question on my current proposals for barristers' fees in two distinct categories of publicly funded work, family and criminal. As a distinguished solicitor, the noble Lord shows a commendable concern for barristers as distinct from the solicitor profession. My proposals have been the subject of extensive consultation from 4th July to 12th October. I shall be provided with a final analysis of responses this Friday. These I shall consider carefully, along with all the representations made to me. I would be concerned if I concluded that any significant drain of talent from these areas of practice was likely due to a new fee regime. However, because of current market circumstances, I am not presently persuaded that such a likelihood exists.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that reply. Is he aware that solicitors have shown a commendable concern, equal to that of barristers, for the efficacy of the Legal Aid Fund? In view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord is to meet them either separately or together--preferably together--will he ensure that he represents fully in the discussions their vested interest in making the legal aid scheme work? Will he do what he can to bring together the viewpoint of the Law Society and of the Bar Council in that regard? It is important that they speak with a united voice.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend asks whether I retain an open mind on the proposals and will be flexible in my approach. I certainly shall be. I aim for a fair playing field between solicitors and barristers. I shall meet the chairman of the Bar Council and the president of the Law Society at the end of November. I shall consider the representations they make with an open mind and will come to my decisions before Christmas.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor confirm--I am sure he will-- that after prolonged negotiation between his department and the Bar Council there was agreed in 1997 and thereafter put into effect an agreed mechanism for remunerating criminal legal aid? Will he also confirm that this provided a complex formula for assessing fees and that there has been no uplift since 1997 despite the RPI increasing by over 10 per cent? My question is therefore this: is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seeking to discredit this agreed mechanism by imposing punitive deductions in regard to the scale already agreed? If so, does he accept that there is truth in the old adage that if you pay peanuts you will ultimately get monkeys?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the facts are that my proposals are confined to cases up to 10 days in length and they concern what we call "graduated fees". The noble and learned Lord is right that in criminal work graduated fees have applied to defence barristers for almost four years. These are acceptable as reasonable by the Bar. A graduated fee scheme sets fixed fees for different items of a case, including preparation and hearings, in place of the bad old system of brief fees, daily refreshers and ex post facto assessments of reasonableness.
	My proposals are designed to remove an inequity under which prosecution counsel were paid much less than defence counsel to the prejudice of the CPS when engaging prosecuting counsel. The proposal therefore is that criminal graduated fees should be reduced by 10 per cent overall to pay for an increase in prosecution fees to bring about equality and to introduce a graduated fee system for prosecution counsel. The Bar should benefit overall and therefore I do not accept my noble and learned friend's strictures.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, bearing in mind the judicially reviewable duties of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor under Section 25(3) of the Access to Justice Act, noting that one of these duties is the obligation to secure family law services by a sufficient number of competent practitioners and taking into account the fact that the circumstances for a cost uplift are extremely constrained, how can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor fulfil this duty when the rates of pay for a senior junior counsel will be the same as for a second six month pupil?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the criteria that I must apply are set out in different statutes. Of course, with the liability to judicial review I shall express myself with great care. But in both areas--family and crime--I shall want to ensure that a sufficient number of competent barristers are available to carry out the publicly funded work in question; and that will be achieved.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord admit that his plans involve a considerable reduction in legal aid fees paid to criminal law barristers and even more so to family law barristers? Will he accept that it is likely to be a serious deterrent to would-be young barristers who, among other things, know that they will leave university owing debts of up to £20,000?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, no, I do not accept that. I believe that all professionals must recognise that they are affected by market circumstances, the same as the rest of us. Those affecting the Bar are that the number of people entering the profession increased by 3 per cent last year and the amount of family work has fallen over the past two years so that there is increasing competition between a larger number of barristers for a similar amount of work. There is also evidence that some criminal law barristers work less than full time. But I am not presently persuaded that there is likely to be a lack of supply of competent barristers in either area to carry out publicly funded work to the extent required at remuneration the public would regard as fair.

Rail Travel: Telephone Information

Lord McCarthy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why local railway stations no longer operate telephone advisory services which provide the public with up-to-date information concerning such matters as train cancellations, late arrivals and the state of station facilities.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in the past, local stations were not formally equipped to operate as telephone advisory services although some did provide information to callers upon request. Under British Rail, up-to-date information was available from 43 relatively small call centres all with different opening hours and telephone numbers. The creation of the National Rail Enquiry Scheme (NRES) outsourced call handling to modern, large call centres which have a single 24-hour telephone number which I am assured is deemed memorable. Noble Lords may judge for themselves: it is 08457 484950.

Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister know that you can never get an answer when you ring that number? I do not know whether the noble Lord is an inveterate rail, car or executive jet man. However, in the days before privatisation if you woke up and could not see your before your face because of fog, or if there were leaves on the line, or if the IRA was "up to it" in the waiting rooms, you could ring the local railway station. I have rung hundreds. They were always manned. That disappeared on privatisation.
	We now have the invisible National Rail Enquiry Scheme. When one occasionally manages to get through to the number, one is given the local customer services telephone number, but that too is often unobtainable. If one does get through, those individuals do not know what is happening in one's local railway station or the station to which one wishes to travel. If one presses the point, they ask, "Have you tried Ceefax?" The other day I was told, "You can always have a go at the Net". More often they say, "If I were you, I would try contacting your local railway station or local radio".
	I do not understand why we got rid of those telephone services, or why we cannot have them back. Until we do so, the Government will be under continuing criticism because people do not know where they are going.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my noble friend says that one can never get through. Knowing where he comes from, yesterday I telephoned NRES to ask about his local station, Oxford. I got through twice on two calls averaging one and a half minutes.
	In the years when the noble Lord worked for British Rail, about 60 per cent of callers found that the telephone lines were engaged or that their calls were unanswered; 90 per cent of calls are now answered.

Sierra Leone

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the foreign policy objectives behind the further deployment of troops to Sierra Leone.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, our intervention in June stabilised the security situation and helped prevent a descent into chaos. But many people in Sierra Leone still live under the threat of a brutal rebel minority. We shall not abandon Sierra Leone. We are determined to stand by its people, and to provide substantial practical support for their government and the United Nations. Our objectives remain to assist the Government of Sierra Leone and UNAMSIL to repel the rebels and restore the peace process.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and remind the House that I have a very peripheral interest. Our troops are doing a fabulous job all round the world. Is the Minister satisfied with the manning of UNAMSIL? Can the noble Baroness say why we are not within UNAMSIL rather than just alongside it?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the compliments that he pays our troops, and join with him. UNAMSIL has been constructive. Noble Lords will know that we were not identified as being a country whose troops would participate in that regard. But we have a strong interest in Sierra Leone historically and now. We have great friendship with the people of Sierra Leone and would not stand idly by when assistance could be given. The noble Earl knows from Questions to and Answers from this Dispatch Box that our support has been sound in relation to training and other matters and is greatly valued by the people and the democratic government of Sierra Leone.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps we may congratulate Brigadier David Richards on the well-deserved honour of a CBE which was announced on Friday. It is a tribute not only to Brigadier Richards but to the wonderful way in which our forces in Sierra Leone have carried out their responsibilities.
	What is the target strength of the Sierra Leone army which we are assisting to train? When does the Minister estimate that the Sierra Leone army will begin to restore government control over the vast majority of the territorial area of Sierra Leone which is occupied by the rebel forces? Can the noble Baroness say anything about the talks, announced for later this week, between the Government and the RUF; and whether it is still possible for RUF personnel to come back into the political process?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join with the complimentary sentiments expressed by the noble Lord in relation to the recent honour.
	I cannot help the noble Lord in terms of the target strength of the army itself. But we have already trained 3,000 troops. It is hoped that the figure will be greater.
	The talks between the Government and the RUF are very important indeed. But it will be a matter for them to discuss how they can fashion a way forward. I cannot give the noble Lord any guarantees about the outcomes of those talks. I hope he will understand that it would be quite precipitous and wrong of me to attempt to do so.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, what is the Government's exit strategy with regard to Sierra Leone?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government have given a clear commitment to the people of Sierra Leone in relation to training. There has not been drift, as some have sought to suggest in the past. Our exit strategy is to assist the people of Sierra Leone to have a clear, strong army which is well trained and able to meet the needs of Sierra Leone in the future. I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific date but it will be done as soon as is reasonably practicable. I reassure the noble Baroness that our troops and this Government are extremely efficient and do indeed comply with our commitments.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, was the Minister told why other countries that originally came to the rescue of Sierra Leone and sent forces, such as India, withdrew?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, they have not yet withdrawn, but the commitments made by some other countries were time-limited. We ask all our partners to join together in support of the democratic government of Sierra Leone. The people of Sierra Leone need our support. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said clearly how moved he was when he visited Sierra Leone by the plight of hundreds of thousands of people whose limbs had been amputated. That is an appalling situation and we hope that the international community will continue to support Sierra Leone and its democratic government.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, reverting to the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Attlee, I am sure that the Minister agrees that the key to ending the atrocities and defeating the RUF in Sierra Leone is the capture of the diamond fields that finance the rebels. Will she explain a little more clearly which force will do that? Will it be the retrained Sierra Leone army or armies, UNAMSIL, the British Army troops or the seaborne rapid deployment force that is now also involved? How will all those groups work together? Our troops deserve a bit more clarity about how the co-ordinated effort will be achieved to defeat those committing atrocities in Sierra Leone.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, all the efforts that the noble Lord has identified need to be employed to help in that task. The British troops have not been and will not be directly involved other than in the ways that have already been explained. Those who want to prolong the difficulties should be dissuaded from so doing. Co-ordination is under the control of UNAMSIL, which is doing well. We should not carp about its efforts. Instead, we should encourage it to do far better.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support the Government's action in Sierra Leone, in particular the recent appointment of Brigadier Alastair Duncan as Chief of Staff. Are those actions part of a wider strategy, given that we understand that the United States is committed to training Nigerian peacekeepers? Does the Minister believe that there are dangers beyond Sierra Leone to the order and safety of West African states?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as usual, the noble Baroness has rightly highlighted a difficulty. The issues in West Africa are very complex and can be inter-dependent. It will be very important to re-establish security in a democratic Sierra Leone. That is bound to have a beneficial influence on the surrounding countries. Our strategy must be to look for security in that region. Our international partners are determined, as are we, to do everything reasonably possible to support democracy and good governance in the region.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is not intended as a critical question, but the Minister has referred to our policy and strategy. We know that the situation is not satisfactory. Are we to go it alone from now on?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, certainly not. UNAMSIL is playing a crucial active role. It is very important that the United Nations is seen to succeed in Sierra Leone, because that will send a message to the rest of the world about the unity of the international community and its effectiveness in facing such perilous situations. We do not stand alone. We should rejoice that we have so many good partners internationally who are standing with us.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, so often the presence of British and international forces overshadows what is happening among the regional armed forces. Will the Minister confirm that our Government are still supporting some of the regional forces in Africa, which will be well able to cope with the situation when the time comes?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am more than delighted to reaffirm that. The House rightly concentrates on what the British and Europeans are doing, but we should never underestimate the commitment given by other partners in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Their efforts are as worthy of our support and praise as our own.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I support what has been said about the contribution of African forces and I commend the appointment of a distinguished Kenyan officer as the force commander. Will the Minister say something about the deployment of the headquarters elements of British forces to support UNAMSIL, which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, referred to in her Statement about a month ago?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, on 10th October my noble friend Lady Symons made it clear that under our memorandum of understanding with the United Nations we are ready to deploy a rapid reaction force in support of UN peacekeeping, including in Sierra Leone. The deployment of an amphibious ready group to Sierra Leone this month is an early demonstration of the seriousness of that commitment. The group comprises elements of our joint rapid reaction forces. It will be headed by HMS "Ocean" and will include troops from 42 Commando Group Royal Marines, as well as the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries "Argus", "Sir Bedivere", "Brambleleaf" and "Fort Austin". It is not a new commitment, as the noble Lord rightly said, but we are happy to take this opportunity to give support.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Pre-Budget Report.

Parliament Acts (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to confirm the Parliament Act 1949 and other Acts; and to amend the Parliament Act 1911. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.--(Lord Donaldson of Lymington.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

Read a third time.
	Clause 2 [Aims of the Service]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Clause 2, page 2, line 3, after first ("local") insert ("probation").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in accordance with the custom of the House, the Government have tabled amendments to reflect the amendment passed on Report last week that changes the name of local boards to local probation boards. All the consequential amendments are identical and give effect to that substantive change in the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for doing the work for me. He has tabled a formidable list of amendments consequential on the one passed on Report. I am grateful for that.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 22:
	Clause 2, page 2, line 3, after second ("local") insert ("probation").
	Clause 4, page 2, line 33, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 2, line 35, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 2, line 37, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 2, line 39, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Clause 5, page 3, line 5, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 3, line 16, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 3, line 30, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 3, line 33, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 3, line 34, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 3, line 35, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 3, line 37, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 3, line 38, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 3, line 42, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 3, line 45, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Clause 7, page 4, line 22, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Clause 8, page 4, line 42, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 5, line 2, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 5, line 7, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Clause 10, page 5, line 24, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Clause 18, page 9, line 1, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Transfer of staff]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Clause 20, page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (2).

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, again, in accordance with the custom of the House, the Government have tabled amendments consequential on the change made to the arrangements for the appointment of chief officers. However, it would be proper for me to advise the House that in this instance the changes made on Report are not acceptable to the Government. They affect an issue of principle and purpose behind the Bill. For that reason, we shall of course seek to overturn this Government in another place. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we look forward to the noble Lord seeking to overturn the Government in another place.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 24 to 27:
	Page 9, line 35, leave out ("or persons so employed").
	Page 9, line 37, leave out ("or person so employed").
	Page 9, line 40, leave out ("and chief probation officers").
	Page 9, line 40, leave out ("or appointed").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Effect of transfer of chief probation officers]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Leave out Clause 22.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 29:
	After Clause 32, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:REINSTATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION ORDER
	(" .--(1) This section applies where the Tribunal has directed under the provisions of section 31 that a disqualification order is to cease to have effect in respect of an individual.
	(2) A relevant person may at any time apply to the Tribunal for the reinstatement of the disqualification order.
	(3) An application under subsection (2) may only be granted if the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it is likely that the individual will commit a further offence against a child.
	(4) Where the Tribunal reinstates an order under this section, it must state its reasons for doing so and cause those reasons to be included in the record of the proceedings.
	(5) In this section, "relevant person" means--
	(a) the Secretary of State;
	(b) a superintendent of police; or
	(c) the director of social services of a local authority.").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be very brief. As noble Lords will have noticed, another amendment has been tabled covering the same area of concern I have had throughout the passage of the Bill. Therefore, I shall not move Amendment No. 29. I am deeply grateful to the Government for their Amendment No. 30. I shall now sit down and wait for the noble Lord to introduce that amendment.

[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 30:
	After Clause 33, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:RESTORATION OF DISQUALIFICATION ORDER
	(" .--(1) If it appears to a chief officer of police or a director of social services of a local authority that the conditions set out in subsection (2) are satisfied in the case of an individual, the chief officer or (as the case may be) the director may apply to the High Court for an order under this section to be made in respect of the individual.
	(2) The conditions are that--
	(a) a disqualification order made in respect of the individual is no longer in force, and
	(b) the individual has acted in such a way (whether before or after the order ceased to be in force) as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order under this section is necessary to protect children in general, or any children in particular, from serious harm from him.
	(3) An application under this section may be made at any time after the disqualification order ceased to be in force.
	(4) If the High Court is satisfied that the conditions set out in subsection (2) are satisfied, it must order that the disqualification order is to be restored; otherwise it must dismiss the application.
	(5) Where an order is made under this section, section 33 has effect with the following modifications--
	(a) in subsection (3), the reference to the individual being under the age of 18 when he committed the offence against a child is to be read as a reference to his being under that age when the order under this section was made,
	(b) in subsections (3)(a) and (4)(a), references to the relevant date are to be read as references to the date on which the order under this section was made,
	(c) in subsection (5)(a), the reference to the individual's circumstances changing since the disqualification order was made is to be read as a reference to his circumstances changing since the order under this section was made.
	(6) For the purposes of this section a disqualification order is no longer in force if a direction under section 32(3) has been given in respect of it and it is not restored by virtue of an order under this section.").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, originally this amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 29 and 132. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is quite right. I listened to the way in which she deployed her argument on the point of--I believe that I paraphrase it accurately--the restoration of a disqualification to a previously disqualified individual, and, if I may say so, I believe that her argument had substantial merit.
	We gave the matter a good deal of thought. The government amendment, which is an alternative, seeks to provide a power for the High Court to disqualify a previously disqualified person or restore to the list a previously listed person acting on the application of a chief officer of police or a director of social services of a local authority. The High Court would have the power to reinstate the disqualification order or restore the person to the list if satisfied that such a course of action was necessary for the purpose of protecting a child or children. The reinstated order would trigger all the consequences following from the original disqualification.
	Therefore, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I believe that she and I both had the same purpose in mind. Accordingly, I beg to move, and commend, Amendment No. 30.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 31:
	After Clause 37, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Indecent conduct towards children
	:TITLE3:EXTENSION OF OFFENCE: CONDUCT TOWARDS 14 AND 15 YEAR OLDS
	. In section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), for "fourteen" there is substituted "sixteen".").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are in similar territory with this amendment. I believe that if I continue to agree with the noble Baroness we shall both be dismissed immediately from our respective Front Benches. However, many of the points raised in our earlier debates were extremely serious. Where we were able to meet the points, I hope that it will be seen that we tried to do so.
	This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 32 and 57. At present it is an offence under Section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 for a person to commit an act of gross indecency with a child under the age of 14 or to incite a child under that age to such an act. The first new clause would raise the age of a child against whom the offence could be committed from 13 to 15. In Northern Ireland a similar offence of indecent conduct towards a child is to be found in Section 22 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 and applies to children under the age of 14. The second new clause would raise the age of a child against whom the offence could be committed in Northern Ireland from 13 to 16.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will again be able to say that this concession is in accord with the underlying theme of what she urged upon us on the earlier occasions. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I carry on like this, I believe that I shall be in danger of being drummed out of the Brownies. That will come to an end temporarily, but I am deeply grateful to the Minister because I know that he has worked very hard to press the arguments in another place.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 32:
	After Clause 37, insert the following new clause--

EXTENSION OF CORRESPONDING NORTHERN IRELAND OFFENCE: CONDUCT TOWARDS 14 TO 16 YEAR OLDS. 1960 C. 33.

(" .--(1) The Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 is amended as follows.
	(2) At the end of section 22 (indecent conduct towards child) there is inserted--
	"(2) In this section "child" means a person under the age of seventeen."
	(3) In section 180(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "child"--
	(a) after ""child"" there is inserted ", except when used in section 22,", and
	(b) at the end there is inserted "and, when used in section 22, has the meaning assigned to it by that section".").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 33:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TO INCITE AN ACT OF GROSS INDECENCY WITH A CHILD
	(" . After section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be inserted--
	"Use of electronic communication to incite acts of gross indecency with children.
	1A.--(1) In this section, except where otherwise stated, "child" means a person under the age of sixteen years.
	(2) Any person who uses electronic communication for the purposes of--
	(a) engaging in an act of gross indecency with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child;
	(b) inciting a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child to meet with him with the intent of engaging in an act of gross indecency; or
	(c) soliciting a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child to engage in any act that would constitute an offence under section 1 or under section 2(a) or 2(b),
	is guilty of an offence and shall be liable--
	(i) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both; or
	(ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
	(3) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.
	(4) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces).
	(5) In this section, "electronic communication" has the meaning given by section 15 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000."").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not take it amiss that, although I am deeply grateful for all that has been done so far with regard to this Bill, I remain concerned about the use of new technology for the purposes of procuring the sexual services of young children.
	Amendment No. 33 is coupled with Amendment No. 34. In essence, the Government have said consistently that we do not need Amendment No. 33 because the issue is already covered by existing legislation. They say that the language in the amendment is flawed. My response to that is that I do not believe that existing legislation is adequate and that I have consistently sought to improve the language. Indeed, I have included further improvements in the version being considered today.
	In my experience, the substantive issue with which this amendment deals is the on-line enticement of children by adults, usually referred to as "paedophiles"--however, that is not a legislative term--in order to exploit children in on-line conversations, in sending them degrading e-mails or pornographic pictures and, ultimately, to commit sexual offences with those children off-line.
	I accept that the existing law is adequate to deal with the off-line element of the sexual offences. Indeed, I have referred previously to a case on 24th October in which a man called Patrick Green was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for sexual offences with a girl whom he met via the Internet. It was the off-line element of his ghastly crime that was responsible for his conviction. However, my contention is that, with the advent of the Internet and other electronic communications systems, the potential for adults to exploit children has increased. The way that they can groom, manipulate and lure children is of a different nature to the off-line process, and that is not covered by existing law.
	The evidence which I gave on Report showed that the police were not using the Indecency with Children Act 1960, which the Government claimed they could use in recent cases involving on-line exploitation. That even applies to children under the age of 14. Moreover, I should be intrigued to know how a paedophile acting alone could be charged with the offence in the 1960 Act of conspiracy to indecently assault a child. Surely conspiracy requires more than one person.
	The noble and learned Lord also quoted in defence of the Government's line the paper by the sub-group of the Internet Crime Forum. I know that that group has been meeting for over a year and I am disappointed by its lack of urgency in looking at the issue. Moreover, while its interim paper, which the noble and learned Lord has been kind enough to send to me, contains useful advice and suggestions, there is no evidence that it has considered at any length the question of legislation and the need for new offences. In fact, there is a cursory dismissal of the need for legislation. The group says that present off-line legislation can be interpreted to on-line activities. However, the police and the judiciary do not appear to take that view. In any event, action in a court could be challenged as the existing legislation has not been drafted with on-line technology in mind.
	I note that in the United States there is an offence of enticement of children by adults. They have much more experience there of cases where the Internet has been used by adults to contact innocent children with a view to grooming them for sexual purposes. I want to mention one example. A 22 year-old and Second Air Force lieutenant was arrested on Friday 13th October this year by the Colorado Internet Crimes Against Children task force when he contacted an undercover officer, who posed as a 13 year-old girl, in the parking lot of a local shopping centre. He had arranged a meeting via the Internet with someone he believed to be a 13 year-old girl. The purpose of the meeting was to go to the man's residence in Colorado Springs and to have various types of sexual contact with the girl, who was actually an undercover police detective from Colorado Springs police department.
	The man had first initiated contact via the Internet two days before the meeting. He was booked into the El Paso county gaol on charges of enticement of a child and of criminally attempting to sexually assault a child. If that kind of contact had been initiated in the United Kingdom, I believe that he could not have been charged. Perhaps an "Internet crimes against children task force" would be an interesting idea here.
	I have no reason to believe that the United Kingdom will not see a major growth in such cases. Surely the Government recognise that it is important to be prepared. Part of that preparation is having an adequate awareness programme to educate and warn parents and children who use the Internet. The charity, Childline International, has made an excellent start on that with its website. It efforts are being made on the equivalent of a shoestring. We should all be indebted to it for that work.
	In this House we must consider whether awareness efforts need to be backed by changes to legislation. My contention is that they do. Perhaps I may briefly summarise how this amendment differs from that which I brought forward on Report.
	First, I have changed the definition of "electronic communication" and used that which recently became law in the Electronic Communications Act 2000. That is the Government's own definition so I hope that they will accept it. For the benefit of those noble Lords who do not have the Act to hand, the definition is:
	"'Electronic communication' means a communication transmitted (whether from one person to another, from one device to another or from a person to a device or vice versa) ... by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984); or ... by other means but while in an electronic form".
	Secondly, I have dropped the concept of sexually explicit discussion with a child. The Minister persuaded me to accept that it did raise problems of how to exclude genuine on-line counselling by reputable organisations.
	Thirdly, I have included a new offence of inciting a child or a person believed to be a child to arrange to meet for the purposes of engaging in an act of gross indecency. This would catch the kind of circumstances where Patrick Green spent months persuading a girl from Cumbria to meet him. No off-line sexual offence took place, but his intent was clear. The only charge brought in that case of abduction was not pressed in court.
	I feel so strongly that it is better that we catch and charge people before they commit sexual offences off-line rather than waiting until they do abuse a child. I hope that the Minister will agree to this amendment, which calls urgently for legislation.
	My Amendment No. 34, which has been previously discussed, broadens the spectrum of acts of abuse and threats of abuse and raises the penalty for such acts. The amendment seeks to protect boys as well as girls, and would cover all sexually explicit conduct, not just sexual intercourse, as is the case under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The amendment updates the law regarding sex and age in order to include the protection of all children and, again, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for helping in that respect.
	In particular, I have added preparatory offences--for example, inciting a child to commit gross indecency, and restricting a child's liberty, which would include abduction. It will also allow for interventions by the police which should result in minimising the opportunity to commit real, physical harm on a child.
	Importantly, my amendment also includes a subsection to punish parents and guardians who betray a sacred trust by sexually abusing their own children.
	Proposals such as those contained in this amendment work in the United States, so why not here? The purpose of my amendment is to allow for the arrest of paedophiles for preparatory offences--those actions which lead to the most awful sexual violation of children. Intervention before physical harm is committed is the aim of my amendment.
	There is no doubt that these actions of incitement, abduction and paving the way for sexual activity against a child should be considered as a crime in itself. After all, it is a crime, for example, to be caught going equipped to steal, thus allowing the police to arrest a would-be thief or burglar.
	Considerable damage can be done to a child subject to any of the activities described in my amendment. Waiting for committees to report, for departments to consider and for room in the legislative programme is like waiting for Godot. The well-being and protection of our children is just too precious for us not to accept the amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, again, I do not think that there is any difference between the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the Government on what we seek to bring about. Perhaps I should set out the principal stand that we adopt.
	Our view is that all objectionable behaviour of the sort generally described by the noble Baroness, which is directed to the vulnerable--namely, children--should be capable of being caught by effective criminal sanctions. In a deep sense, it is not really relevant whether that is done on the Internet or by more conventional means. It seems to us that the law should meet the mischief effectively, comprehensively and coherently, whatever the mechanism or device which is used.
	The first part of the first new clause--and I will spend a little longer than on the earlier matters, if I may, without trespassing on your Lordships' patience--is directed at using an electronic communication for the purpose of engaging in an act of gross indecency. That is to catch, if I understand it right, a person who uses the Internet to get himself in a position where he is able to commit an act of gross indecency with or towards a child.
	If the use made of the Internet contains material which is sufficiently explicit as to the person's intentions, that behaviour is already caught by the incitement provisions of Section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.
	The noble Baroness is right, of course, that more than single mind is required to prove conspiracy, but incitement is not in that category. If the material is not explicit but is used to arrange a meeting, the second part of the proposed amendment--inciting a child to a meeting with the intention of engaging in an act of gross indecency--would come into play.
	Depending on the available evidence, that activity might well be caught by the provisions of the Child Abduction Act 1984 or, indeed, by an attempted incitement to one of the offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. We need to bear in mind that Section 2 of the 1984 Act already makes it an offence for someone other than a parent or some others, without reasonable excuse, to take or detain a child under 16 so as to remove that child from, or keep him out of the control of, any person entitled to have lawful control of the child. A person is regarded as "taking a child" if he causes or is one of the causes of, or induces the child to accompany him or any other person, or causes the child to be taken. There is no requirement for physical removal of the child.
	So there are offences of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, or conspiracy to commit the offences covering much, if not all, of the behaviour dealt with in the noble Baroness's amendment. There are offences of attempted incitement under the 1956 Act.
	One of the cautionary pieces of advice which was well given to us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was to try to achieve coherence in the criminal law. We are not simply waiting for things to happen. As the noble Baroness knows, the first volume of Setting the Boundaries, on reforming the law on sexual offences, was published in July of this year, as was the second volume of supporting evidence. That is out for consultation at the moment. Those are very difficult, intricate parts of the law and if one has confused law reformed piecemeal, very often the perverse consequence is that the law is not able to be deployed appropriately in those areas.
	The consultation period will come to an end in March next year. I suggest, with great respect, that we should really try to reform the law on sexual offences in a comprehensive way, to introduce uniformity and clarity into this difficult area of the criminal law.
	The third part of the amendment--soliciting a child to an act of gross indecency--is covered by the incitement provisions of the existing Section 1 offence. The noble Baroness has already recited what is being done at the moment. I am grateful for her acknowledgement of the interim report of the sub-group. Our position is that we want children to be protected, but we want a comprehensive, workable framework for the criminal law.
	The Association of Chief Police Officers, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, and Customs and Excise have already prepared their high-tech crime strategy in response to the emerging threat posed by high-tech crime. The Home Secretary approved £337,000 for the National Criminal Intelligence Service to prepare the ground--I agree with the point the noble Baroness made--for developing a national unit to tackle computer crime, which includes the offences committed by paedophiles to which she referred. I do not believe that there is a gap in the law which is capable of being filled, or ought to be filled, on a piecemeal basis.
	The second proposed new clause relates to indecency with children. Of course we want to protect children by means of the criminal law. The amendment I moved and which your Lordships agreed extends the protection of children by raising the age from under 14 to under 16. The first part of the second new clause would have no greater effect than the new clause I proposed. One part of the amendment dealt with potential parental liability. Indeed the penalty proposed is up to 10 years' imprisonment in circumstances where,
	"Any parent, guardian or other person having for the time being custody or control of a child who knowingly permits that child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexual activity".
	That means that if a parent with a 15 year-old who is going out with another 15 year-old, knows that they may kiss each other or engage in sexual touching, that parent is liable to be charged with a criminal offence with a sanction of up to 10 years' imprisonment.
	This is not a drafting point; it is a point of substance. I take it as an illustration of the dangers that there are, for good motive and from a good heart, in trying to reform an area of law which is exceptionally difficult. People are regularly prosecuted to conviction in the courts in the United Kingdom. There are offences, of course, to protect children against abduction. I do not believe--this is really a conceptual difference between the noble Baroness and myself--that qualitatively or conceptually there is any difference between the Internet or any other form of human activity that is designed or is capable of damaging children.
	So I sympathise with the motives of the noble Baroness in putting forward these amendments. But the gap that she believes exists does not in fact exist. The powers are there for investigation and prosecution and a number of her illustrations on past occasions resulted in successful convictions.
	I have spent a little time on this. It is an important matter. I urge the House to reform this difficult area in a measured, careful, thoughtful way. The consultation period has not yet run. A good deal of the difficulty in our criminal law has arisen because of piecemeal attempts in the past which have developed and been determined by specific illustrations which outrage us all but which are not always a good guide to proportionate, appropriate reform.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as always, I am grateful for the sensitive way in which the noble and learned Lord dealt with both my amendments. I was disappointed at the way in which he described new subsection (4) in the second amendment. I regard sexual exploitation of an under-age child--we are not talking of 16, 17 or 18 year-olds; we are talking about children under 16--as wrong. Complicit activity between a parent and children in this way is unacceptable and I regard subsection (4) as an important part of the amendment.
	Whatever we say, the police do not believe that they have enough powers to intervene on the ground. We said this at the last stage and know it still to be true. They want powers to intervene before a crime is committed against a child. Noble Lords will have to forgive me. I am coloured by my own experience as a Minister at the Home Office and the total failure I experienced in trying to obtain a description of corrupting and depraving materials; that is, materials which were being illicitly sent through the post to unsuspecting recipients. I failed miserably because there is a natural resistance in the Home Office to draft legislation of this kind. It is something about which I feel extremely strongly and I must test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 185.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
	Clause 43 [Exclusion orders]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Clause 43, page 26, leave out lines 15 to 27.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35 and speak to Amendments Nos. 36 to 38. However, I shall first allow the noble and learned Lord to speak because it is possible that he may have something welcome to say.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. The amendment relates to the subject of the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. He raised questions which a number of your Lordships thought required serious consideration, not least on the previous occasion. Although the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, did not then speak, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle and Lord Dholakia, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the issue.
	The Government are prepared to accept the amendments for the reasons deployed on previous occasions--not in their entirety but in their principle thrust. However, I must make it plain that we looked to flexibility to amend the maximum length of exclusion orders and conditions in case a year was shown to be insufficient.
	The amendments would require primary legislation and therefore, so that your Lordships are not misled, we propose in another place to extend the maximum duration of both an exclusion order and an exclusion condition of a community order to two years. That gives the court the power which I think your Lordships thought was more appropriate than executive decision, even by affirmative procedure on secondary legislation.
	Secondly, the amendments take away the power of the Secretary of State to add to the list of those areas of the offender's private life with which exclusion and curfew should not conflict or interfere. The list may be required to be added to. It was not one of the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee but in another place we shall seek to reinstate those powers which do not go to the principled point.
	In short, therefore, I hope that I have pleased all noble Lords.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord most warmly for that concession. He has done exactly what I hoped he would do: he has conceded the point of principle, which was the one point that concerned us. It is entirely satisfactory to these Benches.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly as I am the only current member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee present in your Lordships' House. I can however see a former member present. The committee feel most strongly about this issue. It is an issue of principle that the power of sentencing should not be capable of being increased by delegated legislation, particularly where it interferes with the liberty of the subject, even if it is not concerned with an actual sentence of imprisonment. We greatly welcome the Government's position.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I thank the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee for its service to the House. Noble Lords on all Benches benefit from the committee's preparatory work before they consider the details of Bills. I am sure that the whole House also wishes to join me in thanking the noble and learned Lord for his work in bringing us to this point.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 46 [Community sentences: drug abstinence requirements]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Clause 46, page 28, leave out lines 1 to 9.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 47 [Community sentences: curfew requirements]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Clause 47, page 31, leave out lines 8 to 17.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 48 [Community sentences: exclusion requirements]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Clause 48, page 32, leave out lines 13 to 22.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 52 [Regulation of community orders]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 41:
	Clause 52, page 37, line 17, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 37, line 22, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 37, line 25, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 60 [Supervision of young offenders after release]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Clause 60, page 44, line 6, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 61 [Release on licence etc: drug testing requirements]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Clause 61, page 44, line 45, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 64 [Arrangements for assessing etc. risks posed by certain offenders]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Clause 64, page 45, line 32, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 66 [Duties of local boards in connection with victims of certain offences]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 53:
	Clause 66, page 47, line 11, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 47, line 20, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 47, line 24, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 47, line 27, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 47, line 36, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 47, line 38, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 47, line 41, after first ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 47, line 41, after second ("local") insert ("probation").
	Page 47, line 42, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 69 [Failure to secure regular attendance at school: increase in penalty]:

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 54:
	Clause 69, page 49, line 34, at end insert--
	("( ) This section shall apply only in cases where the failure to attend school is with the knowledge and consent of the parent or other adult responsible for securing the child's attendance at school.").

Earl Russell: My Lords, Amendment No. 54 in my name and that of my noble friend is concerned with Clause 69 which increases the penalties on parents whose children play truant from school. I no longer seek to delete the clause: I do not believe that it would be proper to do so at this stage. The amendment makes a qualification to the clause. It bites only on a parent whose child fails to attend school,
	"with the knowledge and consent of the parent or other adult responsible for securing the child's attendance at school".
	The point was made very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, at the previous stage that it is perfectly possible for a child to go off to school, even to go through the school gates and register, and then fail to attend for the remainder of day. Following the previous stage of the Bill, I reported what had happened to our departmental office and was told of another case which was on all fours with the one referred to by the noble Baroness. It seems unreasonable that this should constitute an offence liable to a fine of £2,500. Does the Minister have anything to say on that point? I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the issue of culpability is a very real one. An effective policy to get young people off the streets and back into school is something that we all support. I am aware from previous debates that both the Liberal Democrat Benches and our Benches support the Government on all the practical measures they have introduced to encourage the police to visit young people who hang around shopping centres and play areas and to do what they can to get them back into school, and to encourage the community to engage in that process. However, I believe that this amendment goes to the heart of the question of culpability.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I suspect that, not for the first time today, we are moving towards consensus on this issue. I am grateful to the noble Earl for tabling this amendment which I believe is a helpful way forward. I should set out again what we intend to do with this provision so that there is no misunderstanding. At Report stage the noble Earl expressed concern that our proposal would result in innocent parents being taken to court for the actions of children over whom they had no control. The amendment which has been tabled means that the offence applies only to cases where truancy has occurred with the knowledge and consent of the parents.
	I assure the noble Earl that the object of our proposal is not to punish parents who are doing everything possible to ensure that their children are in school. Before a case comes to court there will be months of effort by the local education authority to resolve the matter. Efforts will be made to try to get the child back into school. The issue of non-attendance at school will be discussed extensively with the child concerned, his or her parents and the school involved. Magistrates will expect to see evidence of these discussions when a case comes to court. I am sure that magistrates will expect the local education authority to show that it has done everything possible to help the parents to get the child into school.
	If a parent makes every effort but the child refuses to co-operate in attending school, the local education authority has a number of options open to it. These may involve the use of an alternative education placement for a child other than at school, for example, in a pupil referral unit run by the LEA where the child will receive specialist help and support to re-engage him or her in education. For older children, the option of a place at a further education college could be considered. Alternatively, the child could be offered work experience in the last few years or months of compulsory education alongside the basic curriculum.
	Parenting orders can also be used to help parents. They are designed to help and support parents or guardians in addressing their child's anti-social and offending behaviour. Parenting orders were extremely successful in the pilot areas and were rolled out nationally on 1st June 2000. Those orders have achieved a success rate of 91 per cent in terms of completion. Most importantly, if parents are not able to get the child into school despite their best efforts, the local education authority can apply for an education supervision order which makes the local education authority responsible for educating the child. That is an important option. If a parent is genuinely unable to secure the education of a child at school, the local authority can step in.
	At Report stage the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, quoted the case of a child who had been off school for three months although his parents believed that he had been attending every day. The noble Earl repeated that example. Clearly, it is unacceptable for a school to wait that long to find out what has happened to a child. If the noble Earl and the noble Baroness give me further details of those cases I shall follow them up to see what more can be done. But it remains the case that in that situation a parent must accept some responsibility. Did the parents not ask the child about his or her progress at school? Were they not surprised when the child failed to bring home homework or talk about his or her experiences at school? All of those matters are very important. As a parent I ensure that I discuss my children's schooling with them each and every day, and we expect that of most reasonable parents. It is all very well for parents to protest their innocence but it is astounding that a child can be absent from school for a three-month period without the parents realising that something is amiss. Both schools and parents are responsible.
	Having heard the arguments and acknowledged the points that have been made, I am willing to accept the creation of a new and additional aggravated offence with a maximum penalty at level four and/or three months' imprisonment. That would leave the current offence under Section 444 unchanged. But the new and additional offence would require proof of parental knowledge of truancy. Failure to appear in court to answer a summons for this aggravated offence would allow the issue of a warrant to secure attendance at court. The clear advantage is that the higher penalty would be linked to the most serious cases only.
	Therefore, we do not oppose the amendment today. However, we should like the opportunity, if the noble Earl is prepared to offer it, to discuss the wording of the amendment with the draftsman and, if necessary, table revised wording in another place at Commons consideration of Lords amendments. There is nothing between us on the principle. We are now very much of one view that the objective is to reduce truancy and there is value in adopting the course outlined by the Government. We all want to improve the future prospects of our children. We recognise the importance of ensuring that there is compliance in this area and that the courts are perhaps used in a more sensitive and appropriate way so that parents are brought into the court arena. We can achieve the objective of driving down truancy rates by using the law in a more sensible and intelligent manner.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Russell, winds up on the amendment, I should like to say that we have arrived at a very agreeable pass. I thank the Minister for the work that he clearly has done in the back room.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for what he has done. We are approaching compromise at a rapid speed. I found his reply extremely helpful. I shall not pretend that I agreed with every word of it, but this seems entirely the wrong time to take up the few words that I did not agree with.
	Perhaps I may just clarify one point before we leave the matter. Is it the intention to end up with an aggravated offence of failing to attend school with the knowledge of the parents or with the knowledge and consent of the parents? There is a material difference. I should be glad to know what is in the Government's mind.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we want to reflect carefully on the weight of those two words. It is for that reason that we want to take the matter away. We would very much like to have the opportunity of having further discussions with the noble Earl about the precise formulation of the wording because clearly it will have a material effect.

Earl Russell: My Lords, that is exactly what I understood the position to be. It is a good, honest and sensible answer. I thank the Minister for it very warmly. I beg to move.

Noble Lords: No.

Earl Russell: My Lords, it was my understanding that the Minister needs the amendment in order to have an opportunity to consider further the issue in another place.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can confirm that that is the situation.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 75 [General interpretation]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Clause 75, page 51, line 3, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 77 [Commencement]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Clause 77, page 51, line 18, at end insert--
	("( ) No day may be appointed for the commencement of sections 40 to 42 until the results of the review of the sentencing framework of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 can be taken into account.").

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, at all stages during the passage of the Bill we have tried to persuade the Government that the change to the names of the orders should not be promulgated until the review of the sentencing framework has been completed. In view of the conciliatory tones that have been adopted so often today I hope that we can persuade the Government that this should be the case here. It is clear that there are disagreements about the new names of the orders. It is clear also that the review of the sentencing framework may introduce different forms of orders. It could be extremely confusing to change the names of the orders at this stage and then change them again as a result of the sentencing framework review. Therefore, I ask once more that this matter be delayed until the sentencing framework review has been completed. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, when the amendment appeared on Report I described it as ingenious. I do not know whether one can be ingenious twice. But if one can be, the noble Baroness has succeeded. However, she has not succeeded in persuading us that this is the right course to take.
	The effect of the amendment would be to prevent the commencement of Clauses 40 to 42, which rename community orders, until the review of the sentencing framework in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is completed and its results taken into account. That is something that is some way off.
	We believe that it is right to change these names as soon as convenient. We do not see sufficient reason to await the results of the sentencing review. We strongly feel that changing the names of these orders will make them better understood by the general public. That is critical. These are public courts that give out public sentences. We believe that the public do not really understand what a probation order is, what a community service order is and particularly what a combination order is. If the public were asked what a combination order is, most people would quite understandably throw up their hands and say, "I have not the faintest idea what a combination order is". That is why we believe that the sooner the public are better informed, the sooner they will better understand what it is that the courts are doing when they pass these significant and important orders against convicted persons. We believe that the change of name should come in sooner rather than later; in fact, as soon as possible.
	The review that the noble Baroness refers to in her amendment is a broad review which will not report yet. The consequences of the report will not be implemented for an even longer time. Perhaps I may briefly remind the House what is the point of the review: what principles should guide sentencing decisions; what types of disposal should be made available to the courts; the costs of different disposals; what changes therefore need to be made to the current sentencing framework; and the likely impact of any recommendations in terms of costs and the effects on the prison population. These are among the various issues that this important review will need to comment on. Its comments will need to be considered and either acted on or not acted on. We believe there is some urgency in changing these names. Although we understand exactly what the noble Baroness seeks to do in her amendment, we do not think it is an appropriate amendment to pass. We ask the House not to accept it.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have had a good innings on the amendment. At the end of the day, I am sorry that I have not won. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 78 [Extent]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Clause 78, page 52, line 3, at end insert--
	("( ) Section (Extension of corresponding Northern Ireland offence: conduct towards 14 to 16 year olds) extends to Northern Ireland only.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Local boards]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 58 to 61:
	Schedule 1, page 53, line 5, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 53, line 6, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 53, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
	Schedule 1, page 53, line 35, leave out ("sub-paragraph (5) and").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 62:
	Schedule 1, page 54, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on Report I undertook to reflect upon strongly held views in the House that all boards would require a secretary and a treasurer. I prayed in aid of my position Gwent Probation Service. On reflection, we believe that it would be desirable in all circumstances that a board appoints either a secretary or a treasurer. I promised at the time that I would give the matter fair consideration. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 62. It is in identical text to the amendment persuasively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on Report. I am more than content with its minor alteration but its major impact. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am overwhelmed. I thank the Minister. It is an important but small amendment. There will be legal and financial obligations on all these boards, however small or large. Whether it is a part-time person or a contracted-out service, it is essential to have a secretary and treasurer. I am grateful for what the noble Lord has done.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think there is anything needed in reply. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has made the points most effectively.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 63 to 84:
	Schedule 1, page 54, line 21, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 54, line 27, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 54, line 28, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 54, line 39, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 54, line 42, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 55, line 3, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 55, line 5, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 55, line 9, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 55, line 18, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 55, line 28, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 55, line 29, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 55, line 31, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 55, line 38, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 55, line 40, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 56, line 4, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 56, line 8, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 56, line 13, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 56, line 17, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 56, line 20, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 56, line 27, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 56, line 32, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 1, page 56, line 37, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Lord Bach: My Lords, these amendments and Amendments Nos. 85 to 147 have already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Amendments of the Sex Offenders Act 1997]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 85 and 86:
	Schedule 5, page 65, line 30, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 5, page 66, line 30, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 87 to 147:
	Schedule 7, page 69, line 12, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 69, line 13, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 70, line 12, first column, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 70, line 12, second column, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 70, line 13, first column, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 70, line 13, second column, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 70, line 17, first column, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 76, line 7, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 76, line 12, after first ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 76, line 12, after second ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 76, line 36, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 76, line 45, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 77, line 2, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 77, line 8, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 77, line 15, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 77, line 19, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 77, line 33, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 77, line 37, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 77, line 39, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 80, line 13, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 80, line 21, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 81, line 4, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 83, line 16, after first ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 83, line 16, after second ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 83, line 22, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 84, line 3, after first ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 84, line 3, after second ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 84, line 8, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 84, line 10, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 84, line 32, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 84, line 35, after first ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 84, line 35, after second ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 84, line 44, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 85, line 2, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 85, line 6, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 85, line 23, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 85, line 48, after first ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 85, line 48, after second ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 87, line 17, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 88, line 27, after first ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 88, line 27, after second ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 88, line 36, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 89, line 22, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 89, line 25, after first ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 89, line 25, after second ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 90, line 20, at end insert--
	("Restoration to list.
	4C.--(1) If it appears to a chief officer of police or a director of social services of a local authority that the conditions set out in subsection (2) below are satisfied in the case of an individual, the chief officer or (as the case may be) the director may apply to the High Court for anorder under this section to be made in respect of the individual.
	(2) The conditions are that--
	(a) the individual is no longer included in the list kept by the Secretary of State under section 1 above, and
	(b) the individual has acted in such a way (whether before or after he ceased to be included in the list) as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order under this section is necessary to protect children in general, or any children in particular, from serious harm from him.
	(3) An application under this section may be made at any time after the individual ceased to be included in the list.
	(4) If the High Court is satisfied that the conditions set out in subsection (2) above are satisfied, it must order the restoration of the individual's inclusion in the list; otherwise it must dismiss the application.
	(5) Where an order is made under this section, section 4B above has effect with the following modifications--
	(a) in subsection (3), the reference to the individual being a child when he was included in the list is to be read as a reference to his being a child when the order under this section was made,
	(b) subsections (3)(a) and (4)(a) are to have effect as if at the end there were inserted "beginning with the making of the order under section 4C below",
	(c) in subsection (5)(a), the reference to the individual's circumstances changing since he was included in the list is to be read as a reference to his circumstances changing since the order under this section was made.
	(6) For the purposes of this section an individual is no longer included in the list if a direction under section 4A(3) above has been given in respect of him and his inclusion in the list is not restored by virtue of an order under this section.
	(7) In this section "local authority" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996."").
	Schedule 7, page 91, line 45, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 92, line 17, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 92, line 32, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 93, line 47, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 94, line 52, after first ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 94, line 52, after second ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 95, line 12, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 100, line 2, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 101, line 38, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 101, line 40, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 101, line 41, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 101, line 42, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 101, line 48, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 102, line 3, after ("local") insert ("probation").
	Schedule 7, page 102, line 3, after ("a") insert ("local probation").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
	I congratulate all of those who have taken part in the deliberations on the Bill. Although we had a number of Divisions during the early part of Report stage last week where obviously we did not agree, for the most part there was consensus among us and a degree of commitment to improve the criminal justice system so that important strides can be made in combating crime and protecting the public. I am particularly pleased with those elements of "Sarah's Law" that have been put in place. I pay tribute to all Members of the House who played a part in ensuring that we focused on that. In particular, for child protection reasons, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Hylton, for their contributions and for being persuasive about tackling sex tourism. That was a most useful debate.
	There remains a fundamental divide of principle and purpose over one aspect of the Bill--we shall no doubt return to that--but the arguments have been honourably made and honourably fought. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, although he is not in his place, to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the forceful way in which they put their arguments.
	This is an important Bill. It has been constructively approached. There have been valuable discussions. We have forged some useful amendments between us that breach the political divide because we all share the common objective of securing effective and well-intentioned legislation which works in practice. For all of those reasons, and many more, I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is the House at its best--doing its job, revising legislation. It has strengthened the Bill. The Bill returns to another place in a better form. I hope that we do not see too many of the amendments back in this place. I thank the Minister, noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, noble Lords on the Cross Benches and my colleagues behind me who worked assiduously and took the whole matter very seriously indeed. I wish the Bill well as it returns to another place.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister and his colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, for their considerable help in trying to improve the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the way she has handled some of the issues. The Bill is very much better as it returns to the other place. I noted the Minister's earlier comment that there are certain principles which the Government are not prepared to accept. I hope that the Government will take careful note of what your Lordships' House had to say about some of those matters. There are certain principles in the Bill, particularly regarding the central employment of chief officers of probation, which they seem to favour and we do not. The noble Lord can take it from us that when those issues come up again there will be opposition from this side of the House.
	I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to meet him and his staff to discuss some of the issues that were of concern. Much of the Bill has been improved as a result of the private discussion that has taken place. I thank the noble Lord and wish him success.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Pre-Budget Report

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Pre-Budget Report which has been made in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
	"In 1997 Britain had rising inflation, a deficit of £28 billion, a national debt that had doubled and was at risk of repeating the old familiar stop-go cycle. So, in this Pre-Budget Report, which will address specific and immediate concerns, we will do nothing to put at risk the economic stability that has given us the lowest unemployment for 20 years, the lowest inflation for 30 years, mortgages at 4 per cent--£1,000--below the average of the previous 20 years, and a Budget discipline that has enabled us to cut borrowing and now invest more every year in hospitals, schools and public services.
	"And this hard-won and newly-won stability now gives Britain an opportunity we can either seize or squander--the opportunity to achieve high and sustained levels of productivity growth, and so ensure long-term prosperity not just for some but for all.
	"Yet every time the British economy has started to grow, as in the 1980s, governments have taken short-term decisions on tax and spending which have put inflation, interest rates and economic stability at risk. So, Britain has a choice--the choice that underlies this Pre-Budget Report.
	"The risk for Britain is to repeat the 1980s' mistake of taking economic strength for granted even when we still have a large productivity gap with our competitors and trying to run the economy at a capacity not yet achieved. Our choice--the choice of the Pre-Budget Report--is that we build economic strength by investing and through tax incentives encouraging a new generation of entrepreneurs.
	"The risk for Britain is a repeat of the late 1980s' mistake--claiming a surplus one year could fund tax cuts for every year and, by committing in tax what was yet to be earned, stoking up an unsustainable consumer boom, forcing interest and mortgage rates to rise. We will take no risks with stability. Our choice--the choice of the Pre-Budget Report--is to lock in stability by, as I shall announce today, prudently cutting debt and debt interest payments to keep inflation and interest rates low.
	"The risk for Britain would be to cut investment in education and our infrastructure and perpetuate decades of neglect and undermine our economy. This Pre-Budget Report makes a different choice: to move forward with our three-year spending plans that will double public investment--from education and health, to transport, policing, and the environment--and by continuing to cut both debt interest and unemployment, combining public spending with targeted tax cuts to do more for pensioners and, as I shall show, give families the lowest direct tax burden for 30 years.
	"So, this Pre-Budget Statement sets out a balanced approach: first, stability and prudence to keep interest rates low; secondly, tackling under-investment and then, when it is affordable to do so, targeted tax cuts for the nation's priorities. Let me turn, first, to the forecasts for the economy.
	"Since 1997 our first and most fundamental economic choice has been, through Bank of England independence, tough controls on public spending and difficult decisions on tax, to build economic stability. There were those in this House who predicted that our policies would bring recession. I can report to the House that this year inflation is meeting its 2.5 per cent target and long-term interest rates are around the lowest for 30 years, the same as those in Germany and lower than in America.
	"I can also report that the economy is forecast to grow by 3 per cent this year: manufacturing, despite its difficulties, by 1.25 per cent and exports growing by 8 per cent; consumer demand growing by 3.5 per cent with living standards rising; and business investment which has grown by 1.5 per cent as we lock in a higher level of investment as a share of our economy, 14.5 per cent, than at any time in 40 years, a bigger share of our economy than of the American economy; and in total, fixed investment has this year grown by 2.5 per cent. With 1.1 million more men and women in work than in 1997, Britain now has the lowest unemployment since 1979, the lowest long-term unemployment since 1978, the lowest youth unemployment since 1975; and the highest employment ever among women. Unemployment is now lower in every region, with today 1 million vacancies spread across the country. And this month we plan to reach our promised target: 250,000 young people moved from welfare to work.
	"And it is precisely because we have taken the trouble to build the long-term foundation for success, and precisely because we have resisted short-termism that would threaten stability in interest rates that I can report that, even in times of uncertainty for the world economy over oil prices and exchange rates, the Treasury forecast for next year is that: inflation will meet its target of 2.5 per cent; manufacturing will grow by between 2 and 2.25 per cent; exports will grow by between 7 and 7.5 per cent; growth will range from 2.25 to 2.75 per cent; consumer demand will grow by 2.25 to 2.5 per cent; business investment by 1.5 to 2 per cent; and total investment by 4.25 to 4.5 per cent.
	"There were those who predicted that our public spending plans would lead to higher inflation and that the economy would run out of control. Between 1979 and 1997, inflation averaged 6.2 per cent. Since 1997, it has been less than half as much--2.4 per cent. Interest rates from 1979 averaged 10 per cent; since 1997, 6 per cent. Mortgage rates from 1979--11 per cent; since 1997, mortgage rates an average of 7 per cent. Growth from 1979 averaged 2 per cent; since 1997, it has been 2.7 per cent.
	"We have steered a course of stability, but we are not satisfied. Long-term prosperity for all is our objective, achieving, in this decade, full employment, higher education for the majority of young people, sustained improvements in our public services and, with an end to child and pensioner poverty, not just some, but all citizens sharing in rising prosperity.
	"Long-term prosperity for all depends upon us reaching American levels of productivity growth--and on removing the barriers--by tackling under-investment, skill deficiencies, resistance to new technology and restrictive practices wherever they arise; building a stronger enterprise culture open to all. Today, as part of the Government's contribution to a new and necessary drive for higher productivity, I am proposing to encourage entrepreneurship and expand investment.
	"To make Britain the best place in the world for multinationals to locate, we will build upon our cut in corporation tax from 33p to 30p--the lowest of all major countries and the lowest in our history--by consulting on three major changes: to abolish from April 2001 the withholding tax, not only on international bonds, but normally on payments of interest and royalties between companies in the UK; to relieve tax on sales of subsequent substantial shareholdings by companies; and, in line with the needs of the new economy, tax relief for intellectual property and goodwill as we create the best modern environment for business in the world. I can tell the House that this year corporation tax revenues are £2.5 billion lower than forecast.
	"While it has been put to me that North Sea oil companies, earning higher profits from higher oil prices should be subject to special taxes, I can tell the House that I am determined not to make short-term decisions based on short-term factors. The key issue is the level of long-term investment in the North Sea and this will be the approach that will guide budget decisions in the future.
	"My second set of proposals help small businesses whose numbers have grown already by 150,000 since 1997. Last year we cut small company corporation tax, once 23p to 20p, and introduced a new 10p rate--an overall cut in small company tax bills of nearly 25 per cent. Today I am publishing for consultation with small businesses a set of proposals that simplify small business VAT and are of direct help to half a million small businesses.
	"Capital allowances and tax credits to encourage investment have already saved over £800 million to business since 1997; £0.3 billion to manufacturing. Because I understand the importance of manufacturing, I shall now examine for the Budget further incentives that help manufacturing, in particular the proposals from the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation to extend the research and development tax credit.
	"To help smaller high-risk and e-commerce companies recruit and retain the staff they need, we propose to expand tax relief for share options and make Britain the most attractive environment for e-commerce. In future, all employees can benefit from our enterprise management incentive scheme--up to a company limit of £2.5 million-worth of share options. For the period to May 2000, I propose to make provision for companies to limit and settle their liability for national insurance contributions on share options.
	"Having cut capital gains tax from 40p to 10p for long-term investment, I now propose an even further widening of the scope for the 10p rate--to non-trading companies and to venture capital companies so that employees from all types of companies will benefit. To enhance the contribution of institutional investors, we will consult on the Myners Review proposals to reform the minimum funding requirement and to remove regulatory barriers to investing in venture capital.
	"To expand savings generally and especially to double the number of low-income families who save, we will review all capital limits that deter savings. Already, 9 million ISA accounts have been opened and £3 billion more is being saved by low-income savers. The tax-free limit for ISA savers has been set for next year at £5,000. I propose once more to set it at £7,000, a figure I shall set for the next five years.
	"To build enterprise and balanced economic development across all the regions, public investment, including public/private partnerships, we are proposing today that regional development agencies have greater freedom to decide locally how money is invested to meet local needs. The rate of small business creation in high unemployment communities is still one-sixth of the more prosperous areas and unemployment is still twice as high. Future jobs and long-term prosperity will come, not from benefit cheques or the old subsidies, but by a radically new approach, encouraging economic activity and business development along the lines proposed by the Rogers and Cohen reports.
	"I now propose a radical reform of tax incentives designed to raise business investment in high unemployment areas by £1 billion. I propose to introduce stamp duty exemption for all properties in our most disadvantaged communities; accelerated tax relief for cleaning up contaminated land; VAT cuts to reduce the cost of residential property conversions; and tax relief to bring empty flats over shops back into use. I propose to consult on further business rate relief for small businesses in assisted areas; a new generous tax credit for community investment; and the creation of the first community development venture fund.
	"To assist the upgrading of listed buildings central to community life in all parts of the country, I can also announce that we are today asking the European Commission to reduce VAT from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent on repairs to churches.
	"I have one further proposal for a special tax relief. We will not only continue to work for cuts in third world debt, but now plan to do more to meet the international targets of cutting world poverty by half and cut by two-thirds infant mortality, which, through preventable diseases, carries off one in seven of the world's children before the age of five. As one of a number of proposals that the International Development Secretary and I are working on to tackle child poverty, the Government will investigate a new tax incentive and spending measures to develop, cut the costs for and ensure the supply of anti-TB, anti-malaria and anti-AIDS drugs--drugs which could save lives, tragically still unavailable in the poorest countries, but with the potential that must now be realised to reduce avoidable suffering and unacceptable deaths.
	"I turn to pre-Budget measures to meet our goal of full employment. In addition to making work pay through the 10p income tax rate, the new working families' tax credit and the New Deal which some would abolish but which, as independent research shows, has cut youth unemployment by 40 per cent more than would have happened without it, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I will intensify coaching help for the 50,000 young people still out of work; consult on introducing a new service that will help redundant workers move quickly into new jobs; investigate how, with tax free and in some cases free adult learning, we can help to upgrade fast-changing workforce skills; extend the New Deal for lone parents with our nationwide programme of choices, starting next April, and extend to a further 150,000 lone parents not on income support the opportunity to get back to work; agree a new partnership with the voluntary sector to help those with disabilities who want work to get it, while with a £200 million a year additional package that the Secretary of State for Social Security will announce tomorrow, improving the living standards of those unable to work and carers; and, for each area, drawing up local full employment plans addressing all barriers to full employment in their local areas.
	"Higher productivity and rising unemployment depends not just on ending decades of under-investment and targeting tax incentives on our priorities, but on entrenching a low inflation culture that prudently keeps interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible. It is because we have learnt from the mistakes of the 1980s and before that I can tell the House that, in spite of the demands made to me, I have decided, in the interests of keeping interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible, to lock-in over the coming years a fiscal stance that is the same or is tighter than we said at the time of the Budget.
	"Let me give the House the background and the full financial figures. Our first fiscal rule--the golden rule: the first rule necessary to keep interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible--is that over the cycle there must be a current surplus. So, however tempting it may be for some to identify large temporary surpluses as an excuse for permanent injections of resources into the economy, our golden rule demands constant prudence.
	"In the Budget I forecast this year's current surplus at £14 billion. I now forecast this surplus to be £16.6 billion, and in the years from 2001-02 the current surpluses are forecast to be £16 billion, £14 billion, £8 billion and £8 billion--figures that ensure we remain on course to balance the current budget over the economic cycle, even on the most cautious of cases.
	"Our second fiscal rule--the sustainable investment rule; a bulwark against short-termism that again helps keeps interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible--is that while over the cycle we will borrow for investment, we do not borrow for consumption and we keep debt at a prudent and sustainable level below 40 per cent of national income.
	"After a doubling of the national debt in the early 1990s, the ratio of debt to national income had by 1997 risen to 44 per cent. Having made the necessary difficult tax and spending decisions, we have in the three years since 1997 reduced the ratio of debt to national income from 44 per cent to 41.9 per cent, to 39.6 per cent, and to 36.8 per cent this April.
	"I can report to the House that two decisions--first, the decision to use the proceeds from the spectrum auction to reduce our debt; and, second, to use this year's surplus to repay debt--now make possible a further and even more substantial reduction in debt that will keep interest payments low. Because we are, in total, cutting the stock of debt by as much as one-third, I can report to the House that the public sector net debt as a share of GDP will now fall from 36.8 per cent last year, to 32.3 per cent this year, to 30.9 per cent in 2001-02, and from what was a debt to GDP ratio as high as 44 per cent in 1997, I can report that this ratio is forecast to fall to 30 per cent and remain there in future years. With long-term interest rates lower and debt well within the 40 per cent ceiling, we are not only well placed to deal with the ups and downs of the economic cycle but have the best platform for years for sustained long-term growth.
	"Our Budget forecast for net borrowing was a surplus of £6.5 billion this year. We now forecast the surplus to be £10 billion this year and £6 billion next. In future years the deficits will be £1 billion, £10 billion, £12 billion and £13 billion as we borrow to invest. In every one of the next five years, adjusting for the cycle a fiscal stance that is the same or is tighter than at the time of the Budget. And this year, with the spectrum proceeds, the net cash debt repayment will be £28 billion.
	"So our approach is to reject the old vicious cycle of the 1980s--rising debt, higher long-term interest rates, higher debt repayment costs, lower growth, higher unemployment and enforced cuts in public spending--the old boom and bust. Instead, as we promised, we have by our decisions created a virtuous circle of falling debt, lower long-term interest rates, lower unemployment, lower debt payments and a stronger economy releasing more resources for public spending.
	"I can report to the House that, because of this virtuous circle, lower unemployment has brought savings in social security which, compared with the Budget, provide an additional £1.5 billion next year and £2 billion and £2.5 billion in future years.
	"In addition to higher government revenues this year from higher employment, higher earnings growth and steady growth, debt interest payments are now lower than we forecast at the time of the Budget, by £2.5 billion next year and £2 billion in the next two years.
	"When we came into government we were paying out more in debt interest payments than we were spending on our schools. Soon, as a result of cutting debt payments, we will be able to spend 50 per cent more on our schools than we do on our debt interest.
	"Over the past 20 years, 42 pence of every additional pound spent went to debt interest and social security. In the early 1990s it was 50 per cent of every pound. Debt and social security will now require only 17 pence of every pound, leaving more than 80 pence in every pound of additional spending for hospitals, schools and vital services, enabling us to tackle the long-term under-investment in Britain.
	"It is therefore because we have cut the cost of debt and unemployment--now costing £5 billion less than in 1997--and because we have also secured sustainable growth, that we are able to lock-in a fiscal tightening, meet all our fiscal rules and, within this prudent framework, we are in an even stronger position than in July to tackle under-investment and target tax cuts on our nation's priorities.
	"Since July I have received representations from people in this House about public spending, including representations which propose spending growth only in line with 2 per cent GDP growth per year. I have studied this proposal in detail. It would mean by year three, cuts in spending of £16 billion and after taking into account the measures that I will announce on pensions today, more than £16 billion.
	"I have rejected these representations and, because the economy both needs and can afford--and cannot afford not to--to tackle the long-term under-investment, the Education Secretary will tomorrow, as part of allocating his annual 5 per cent real-term increase in education every year, announce resources for the new learning and skills council.
	"And because investment is needed in our infrastructure, not just for social reasons but to build economic strength, the Minister for Transport will announce how every region, city and town will benefit from the new investment in roads; and, with new funds from the spending review allocated to each region for economic regeneration, the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly publish his rural and urban White Papers.
	"As part of the 5.6 per cent real-terms rise in NHS spending each year for the next three years, the Secretary of State for Health will announce for each of the next three years his allocations to health authorities up to 2004.
	"In addition to the Statement on pensions from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security tomorrow, and the extra allocation we have made to improve flood defences, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is announcing today additional allocations to our schools.
	"The windfall tax is money raised from the utilities specifically for the purpose of extending employment opportunity through the New Deal and educational opportunity, renovating so far 17,000 schools. Such has been the success of the New Deal in getting people back to work that the windfall levy account is underspent by £200 million. So the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I have decided that, in addition to the rise in education spending this year, lower unemployment means that we can allocate new money for every school in every constituency in the country--money to be available this year for repairs and improvements; money to be paid direct to the school. The head teacher of every primary school will receive a cheque for between £4,000 and £7,000. The head teacher of each secondary school will receive, for the smaller schools, £10,000; for the larger schools, £30,000. Prudence once again for a purpose, enabling us to target resources to our priorities and in a sustainable way.
	"This prudence also allows us now to match public spending increases by tax cuts targeted on the country's priorities, including making reforms in the tax treatment of transport and the environment, to which I now turn.
	"Between 1997 and 1999, retaining the fuel escalator introduced in 1993 helped to cut borrowing by £30 billion, helping to deliver lower interest rates and enabling us to begin the long-overdue investment in transport, the NHS and schools. And it will have brought about a cut in carbon dioxide pollution by an estimated 1 million to 2.5 million tonnes a year by 2010.
	"But today, like all countries, we are having to deal with the rise in world oil prices from 11 dollars to 31 dollars. Because OPEC itself accepts that the world price is unacceptably high, our international efforts are geared to ensuring that production is raised and prices fall.
	"So I recognise and understand the very genuine concerns that motorists and hauliers have, and it is because here in Britain we have already cut the deficit, already set aside £180 billion for the 10-year transport plan and already shown how we are meeting the Kyoto targets, that in the last Budget I removed the fuel escalator and made environmentally-based cuts in car and lorry licences and gave new incentives for environmentally efficient fuels.
	"In line with the principles we have set down, I am now able today to show how we can complete these reforms and do more to meet people's concerns--without putting at risk either our economic stability, necessary investment in public services, or our environmental gains. Indeed, the reforms I now propose are tailor-made to meet our environmental obligations.
	"The annual rise in the price of fuel that would automatically be introduced on Budget day would raise £560 million, putting petrol and diesel up by around 1½ pence a litre. I propose, at a cost of £560 million, a freeze in excise duties--an across-the-board duty freeze on all fuels that would initially last until April 2002--and, if the oil price remains at a high price between now and then, I can tell the House that there would be a duty freeze for a further year.
	"I intend to go further in three vital respects. On top of the duty freeze--budgeted for in our fiscal arithmetic--the first of the proposals I will consult on would itself involve additional expenditure of as much as £1,000 million and help to promote substantial benefit to the environment.
	"Yesterday, we published a report showing the environmental benefits from the introduction of ultra low sulphur diesel in reducing local air pollution. As a result of cuts we made in excise duty on ultra low sulphur diesel, usage in Britain has risen from 20 per cent in 1997 to 40 per cent in 1998, to 100 per cent in 2000. It requires no change to be made in lorry and van engines and it now accounts for virtually 100 per cent of the market for diesel in Britain today. Britain is now leading in this cleaner diesel.
	"We now need to build on that environmental achievement. The widespread use of ultra low sulphur petrol would further and significantly improve local air quality. Crucially, it would require no change to existing car engines.
	"It is now time to make this cleaner fuel available in every petrol station of the United Kingdom and to make the use of this fuel, which requires no change in any car, cheaper for everyone.
	"To do so, I propose to cut the excise duty for ultra low sulphur petrol so that it replaces unleaded petrol in every petrol station in Britain, and at a lower excise duty. On 1st October, we reduced the duty on ultra low sulphur petrol by 1p a litre. I propose, from Budget 2001, a further reduction of 2p a litre, making a cut of 3p in total on all ultra low sulphur petrol.
	"And because it is right to maintain the proper balance between petrol and diesel, I propose also from Budget day to match the cut in low sulphur petrol with a 3p cut in excise duties on ultra low sulphur diesel which will go to all diesel users. I expect ultra low sulphur diesel and petrol to account for 100 per cent of the market next year and, when the excise duty cut is introduced at Budget time, motorists using any petrol station in Britain to be able to benefit from this duty cut.
	"It is by giving this incentive for cleaner fuels that we can both advance our environmental principles and ensure, with a 3p cut per litre in all ultra low sulphur duty, a cheaper, cleaner fuel available in every garage--a better deal for drivers and cleaner air across Britain.
	"I can also announce that for all cars which still use lead replacement petrol--where there is no longer an environmental case for a higher duty rate--I propose from Budget day to end the differential and cut the excise duty by 2p per litre.
	"I now intend to go further to help the haulage industry that is undergoing restructuring. I propose support for scrapping or converting older lorries with a £100 million investment fund, including help for buying the new lorries that meet the highest technological and environmental standards, and support for the introduction of logistics and computerisation. The Deputy Prime Minister will also announce help for an industry-wide training and retraining scheme.
	"But we can do more. So that foreign lorries pay their share of the costs of using our roads, we intend to introduce in Britain a vignette system--a British disc, under which non-British companies and lorries pay their share to Britain for using British roads.
	"The Government have considered an essential user rebate or blue diesel scheme for lorry diesel. Such a scheme would be administratively cumbersome, could be levied only on future purchases of diesel, and would have to be opened to foreign lorries using British roads. It would not help hauliers where their fuel prices are directly passed on to customers. It would have no environmental benefits.
	"The scheme I am proposing is far better. Subject to consultation and legal clearance, I now propose to bring forward a much-needed reform begun last year in vehicle excise duty for lorries that will radically cut rates for larger lorries with traditionally high licence fees. The scheme will be implemented in Budget 2001--to sweep aside the 100 separate rates, consolidate them into only seven rate bands, linked to environmental standards, and cutting the rates to match the lowest in Europe.
	"Lorries in the most competitive sector will save over £2,000. Over 250,000 lorries will each pay lower licence fees as a result of a £300 million annual cut in licence fees; 100,000 lorries will save over £1,000; the average saving per lorry will be £715 a year; and the cuts are the equivalent in value to a cut of 3p in the price of diesel for the haulage industry--and again, with environmental incentives built in.
	"Our proposals for the detailed new scheme, and licence rates, are published today, and the Government are able to start the transitional arrangements to this new licence scheme immediately. I have allocated £265 million for this financial year--half of the annual revenue raised from lorry vehicle excise duty--to be spent before March for a refund scheme that can repay lorry owners up to half of this year's licence fee; 250,000 lorries, and all large lorries, will benefit from the refunds. They will be worth, for some of the largest lorries paying the highest fees, £1,000 and up to £4,000 this year. Refunds will be paid from next month, payments to be completed by the end of January--the detailed arrangements to be announced by the Minister for Transport.
	"To help restructuring and investment in farming, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced last week, in addition to this year's £220 million package of measures, agri-money compensation for arable producers. In addition to freezing duty on red diesel at its current rate of 3p a litre, I also intend in Budget 2001 to abolish vehicle excise duty on tractors and agricultural vehicles completely.
	"I now have a similar proposal for car licence fees. Consistent with our environmental principle that we tax vehicle ownership less, I want now to complete our environmentally based reform of vehicle excise duty for cars. The new licence fee we are introducing for new cars registered from March 2001 is linked to environmental efficiency. For all cars under 1200cc there is also now a lower rate licence fee with a £55 deduction on the standard licence. While this change has been welcomed, many, especially those in rural areas, have put it to me that greater choice would be available to rural motorists and motorists generally if the £55 deduction could be accessible for, not just cars under 1200cc but cars up to 1500cc, including, for example, the Focus, Golf, Astra, Escort and the Rover 214.
	"So I propose to extend the lower rate licence fee, the £55 discount, to cars up to 1500cc, to be paid from July but to be backdated from today. So all those who have a car from 1200cc to 1500cc--an extra 5.4 million cars--will be entitled to £55 off their annual licence fee from today. So in total, over 8.5 million existing cars, one in every three, will now pay £55 below the standard fee.
	"So for motorists as a whole, with the duty freeze and new reduced licence fee and the cut for ultra low sulphur diesel, the proposed Budget package makes changes worth the equivalent of a 4p a litre cut while meeting our environmental objectives.
	"And by next year, for the haulage industry, changes that are worth the equivalent of a cut of 8p on a litre: in each case meeting our environmental obligations, not putting at risk public investment in vital services, nor the stability of the economy. Measures upon which Ministers are now inviting discussion in the pre-Budget consultation which will take place as Ministers visit every region of the country.
	"I turn now to specific measures of benefit to families and to pensioners.
	"Our aim is that not just some, but every child has the best start in life and that we halve child poverty in the coming decade.
	"Families need help most at the time when parents are bringing up their children. As we extend our new integrated system of child support--from £15 a week child benefit for every child to a maximum of £50--our priority in the coming Budget is the new children's tax credit, a tax cut for families. This family tax cut, which replaces married couples' allowance, will be paid on top of child benefit to around 5 million families at £8.50 a week, and is worth £442 a year.
	"On current figures, the proposals on which we are consulting would, if implemented, mean that overall the tax burden would not rise next year and I would achieve my aim of next year cutting the direct tax burden on the typical family below 20 per cent. It will fall from 20.3 per cent to 18.6 per cent, the lowest level since 1972.
	"But I believe that in the coming Budget we can offer a larger tax cut for families. My aim is to increase the family tax cut to £10 a week, in total a £520-a-year tax cut, increasing families' income. And just as we are introducing a new system of child support based on the foundation of child benefit--but at the heart of which is the new working families' tax credit--so, too, it is now time, based on the same principle, to raise pensioner incomes by a tax and benefit reform that will have as its foundation the basic state pension, and will have as an essential building block, like the working families' tax credit, a new and generous pension credit.
	"Our aim for pensions reform is both to end pensioner poverty and to ensure that all pensioners share in the rising prosperity of the nation. But in a new world of rapidly diverging pensioners' incomes--already 17 per cent of couples are retiring on more than £20,000 a year, and that percentage grows year on year--and where, as a result, inequalities between pensioner incomes are as great as inequalities within the population as a whole, we shall best meet our obligations to pensioners by a new approach.
	"To plan for the future based on a flat rate earnings-linked rise paid to all, which would give exactly the same to those with incomes above £20,000 as to those on middle incomes and, because the income support system would do absolutely nothing for the poorest, would mean that by the time today's 45-year olds were retiring, for every £6 billion extra spent on an earnings link, £2 billion went to pensioners with incomes above £20,000 at today's prices. Thus less would be available for the middle and lower income pensioners, who are our first priority.
	"So we need a policy that does most for those who need most and, at the same time, ensures that all pensioners--the very poor, those on modest incomes and the relatively comfortable--share in the rising prosperity of the nation.
	"Perhaps I may tell the House what the new system, which will integrate tax and benefits and build upon the basic pension a new pension credit will look like in 2003. I shall then set out the transitional arrangements.
	"First, for those in and at risk of poverty, we shall radically improve the minimum income guarantee. I can tell the House that the minimum income guarantee, which was £68.80 in 1997, is £78.45 today, and will be raised in April by £14 to £92.15. For thousands of our poorest pensioners, £700 extra a year.
	"I can also tell the House today that when the new system is introduced in April 2003, the minimum income guarantee will be set not at £92, but at £100 a week-- £22 a week more than today. For the first time a single pensioner will be guaranteed at least a £100 a week; and for couples, a rise from £106.60 in 1997 to £154. Every year after that I can tell the House that the minimum income guarantee will be raised in line with earnings.
	"With the winter allowance there will be a 32 per cent increase in income even after inflation, demonstrating our determination that no pensioner is left behind as this Government work to ensure that pensioner poverty is a thing of the past. More than 2 million will benefit. People will be able to claim by phone. They will do so at the point of retirement and whatever adjustments thereafter would need to be made only when circumstances change.
	"But we have a second obligation--to millions of pensioners who, after a lifetime of hard work, have modest occupational pensions and modest savings, but receive nothing from the system on top of their basic pension and have until now been penalised, not rewarded, for their savings; people whom we meet every week in our constituencies. This Government are determined that people who have worked hard and saved all their lives should now receive more.
	"Tomorrow the Secretary of State for Social Security's Statement will outline the new integrated tax and benefit system--both the pension credit and the new pensioner tax arrangements.
	"I said in the Budget that I wanted the beneficiaries of the new credit to be single pensioners with incomes up to £100 and pensioner couples with incomes up to £150. I can now tell the House that pensioner couples with incomes below £200, and single pensioners with incomes below £135--many millions of pensioners--will receive the new pension credit.
	"I can tell the House that while the pension will rise in line with inflation, the new pension credit will itself rise in line with earnings every year. In this way, we shall give recipients of the pension credit more than even the earnings link in the basic state pension would give them.
	"The pensioners tax allowance will be set at April 2003 at an even higher level--£6,560 for the single pensioner--and for the next Parliament we propose that the pensioners' tax allowance also rises in line with earnings. For the vast majority of pensioners, the middle and low income pensioners of Britain, the new system will provide extra cash on top of the basic pension: sums of between £1 and £23 a week.
	"Achieving all our aims: for millions of the neediest pensioners relief from poverty; for those on modest incomes a reward for their savings and occupational pensions more than an earning link could offer them; and ensuring that all pensioners can enjoy a share in the rising standards of living of the country.
	"As we move to this new and better system, the Social Security Secretary and I have decided that the transitional arrangements should ensure that over the next two years pensioner incomes should rise faster than inflation and indeed faster than earnings. So from April next year we propose that for the single pensioner there should be a cash increase of £5 a week and for a married couple a rise of £8 a week. I can tell the House that the following year we can also guarantee that the pension will rise well above prices. There will be a cash increase of £3 for single pensioners and £4.80 for married couples.
	"Over two years, a cash rise of £8 a week for single pensioners and £12.80 a week for couples. For pensions £2.6 billion more each year, on top of more for health, education, transport policing and public services.
	"Those who would spend this money on tax-cutting should now tell us which hospitals, which schools, which public services they would cut. We have made our choice--investment, targeted tax cuts, keeping mortgage rates low, and more for pensions and families: a stronger, fairer Britain.
	"I have one final announcement. I have had representations to abolish the winter fuel allowance and indeed abolish the free TV licence for the over- 75s. I have even received representations to abolish the Christmas bonus. I have rejected such options that would give with one hand and take with another.
	"I can confirm that now and in future years the free TV licences will remain for the over-75s, as we have promised. The Christmas bonus will continue and the winter allowance will be paid at £150. But the transitional arrangements to our new pension reform will not start next year, but can start this year; indeed, they will start this week. I can confirm that cheques are being sent out from Monday that will be paid to every pensioner household in Britain.
	"The winter allowance will not be paid at £150 this year; nor will it be abolished. For this year specially--the first year of the transitional arrangements--it will be paid not at £150, but at £200 to every pensioner household free of tax.
	"I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, thank the Minister for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to hear the Statement today and to comment on it.
	When students of political history are examining the dramatic fall from grace of this Government--the fastest in the history of polling by Gallup--they will conclude that they fell because they underestimated the intelligence of the public. Your Lordships will recall that in Plato's allegory of the cave the people were tied to chains in a dark cave able to see a passing parade of objects that they thought were real, but which were in fact only the shadows cast by the objects.
	As today's Statement shows, this Government's entire tax and spend strategy is built on shadows, on keeping people in the dark. They worked out that they could not win elections by offering to raise tax so they decided explicitly and consciously to cut visible taxes on voters while raising invisible taxes elsewhere. How else can one explain the words at the beginning of the Statement; namely, that the Pre-Budget Report would give families the lowest direct tax burden for 30 years? That statement, failing as it does to draw the distinction between direct and indirect taxes, is an insult to the intelligence of the public. It treats the public like morons.
	However, the Government have overlooked the fact that the public are highly sophisticated and aware. Let us take two of the groups that the Government are trying to appease in the Statement: pensioners and fuel tax protesters. Why have these two groups been chosen? It is because they were early victims of the Government's strategy. Early on the Chancellor said that he would uprate pensions and fuel tax by the rate of inflation. It sounds reasonable--does it not?--except that he then used two different definitions of inflation, so pensioners ended up with an increase of 1.1 per cent in their income from the Government and fuel users with a 3.4 per cent increase in their tax payments to the Government. That is brilliant, except that an intelligent and well informed public saw through it, which led directly to the Chancellor's humiliating U-turns of today on those two areas.
	Then, after weeks of saying that the Government could not possibly cut fuel tax to help hauliers and farmers, because that would mean cruel and heartless cuts to our schools and hospitals, they have in the Statement cut vehicle excise duty instead. They just changed the names and saved the hospitals.
	The Government say that they are presiding over "strong public finances". Those three words are repeated endlessly in government statements. The idea, I think, is that people then fall at the Government's feet in gratitude. But where did these "strong finances" come from? I refer to the £46 billion surpluses in four years, to which the noble Lord referred. Is it perhaps because of the strong economy? No, it is not that, because trend growth of GDP is only two and a quarter per cent which is half as fast as that of America and even slower than that of Euroland.
	But out of this modestly growing economy there is one item which is miraculously growing much more rapidly: government tax receipts which are growing by over 6 per cent a year. That is three times the rate of growth in the economy. There lies the true economic miracle of this Government: taxes growing three times faster than GDP. Even the great economic experts of the land are unsure how this innocently named "fiscal buoyancy" has come about.
	How has it happened? I think that the Government have taken full advantage of the complexities of the tax system, many parts of which we heard about in the Statement. First, Britain's tax and benefits system under this Government transfers each year £30 billion--that is, between 9 and 12 per cent of all government spending--in and out of the very same households because of the overlap between taxpayers and recipients of state-administered benefits and pensions. For example, there are 14.2 million people whose income is less than £10,00 a year, half the average. They pay tax to the Government, and also receive means-tested benefits from the Government; and there is a bizarre range of methods by which those benefits are assessed for tax. There is plenty of scope there to hide various accounting methods.
	Secondly, under this Government there has been a staggering proliferation of tax rates. According to the latest figures from the House of Commons Library, even the number of basic tax rates has more than doubled from 15 to 38 under the present Government. Tolley's Standard Tax Manual, which I am told is the Bible of tax accountants, has increased from 2,529 to 3,293 pages under this Government. The Finance Bill has famously grown to a record 570 pages in two volumes.
	The Institute of Chartered Accountants recently warned that the tax system under this Government was now so complicated that it had,
	"spun out of democratic control".
	The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that it is now "extremely difficult" for people to calculate how much tax they are due to pay.
	There is now a mass of over 250 complex tax allowances, reliefs, exemptions, credits, indexations, tapers, disregards and so on which taxpayers have to navigate. Today the Government invited pensioners to navigate a new credit.
	Through the gradual erosion of those allowances the Government could achieve EU average levels of taxation almost imperceptibly, which is exactly what they are doing. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, your Lordships' House may as well stop debating the subject of tax harmonisation because the Government have already filled in two-thirds of the gap in the tax burden between the UK and Euroland. When they took office, we had a 6 per cent advantage; it is now 2 per cent. No wonder that the noble Lord said that,"We should not overestimate the importance of the tax burden". I think that I quote him correctly.
	The result of complexity is lack of transparency. The concept of stealth tax is well known--a new tax in a disguised form. But the current system has spawned an even more effective form of taxation hidden in the morass--economists call it "fiscal drag". Most people believe that the tax system now takes around 38 per cent of GDP--the record that the Government have achieved--but that is just the net effect of the system. The gross system collects a staggering 53 per cent of GDP. The citizen is then obliged to claim back 16 per cent of GDP--that is, £150 billion--in complex allowances, exemptions, credits etc.
	The charm of such a large gross tax system--from the Government's point of view--is the scope it allows for hidden tax increases via reduced allowances. Under this structure the Chancellor can, and does, increase tax without ever announcing a tax rise. People just wake up one day and find that they are in a higher tax bracket, with the result that tax as a percentage of GDP creeps up invisibly. For example, the Government's recent Budget changes to income tax rates--the famous 10p starting rate and the 22p band--were dealt with in two lines in the Budget Statement, whereas another 42 lines were required to explain changes to allowances, reliefs and exemptions.
	So despite the new 10p tax band the personal income tax burden increased due to the erosion of the real value of tax allowances; that is, allowances growing more slowly than earnings, leaving a rising share of personal income liable to tax. That is how the UK's so-called "strong public finances" have come about under this Government, not because of the "strong economy", but because this is the third year in a row in which government tax receipts have risen by more than double GDP.
	The Statement illustrates why someone needs to carry the torch for transparency, simplicity and openness in the tax system. Your Lordships are well aware that the Parliament Act 1911 deprived your Lordships' House of any role in financial scrutiny. However, study of Hansard of the passage of the then Parliament Bill reveals that its raison d'etre was the hereditary nature of the House of Lords. However, as the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said after the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999 and the removal of the hereditary Peers, Your Lordships' House has become more legitimate, more democratic, more authoritative.
	Therefore, many of your Lordships on all sides of the House have asked whether it is time to reconsider the role of this House in the country's financial affairs. At the previous meeting of the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House, the Leader of the House said that we have to deal with financial matters the way we always have because we have being doing it that way for centuries. However, I doubt that the noble Baroness, of all people, wants to uphold the merit of tradition and precedent as a basis for future policy.
	My reaction to the Statement is to look forward to the day when all sides of your Lordships' House can bring their formidable talents to bear to achieve greater openness and transparency in the country's finances and to lead the people out of the darkness of Plato's cave where this Government are so determined that they should stay.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I start with an apology to the House. I cannot begin to match the references to Plato by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. Without denigrating the noble Lord too much, perhaps I may say that it would do many of us more good to read Plato assiduously than to listen to the noble Lord's speeches on economics.
	I, too, join him in welcoming the Government's decision to repeat this Statement to the House. There are individual measures within the Statement which we on these Benches welcome. First, on the business tax side, we welcome the decision to extend tax relief for share option schemes. It has been an issue for which these Benches have argued over many years. We are pleased that the Government are responding to the change in the economy, in particular the e-economy, by extending share option benefits in that area.
	Secondly, we welcome the proposals to simplify VAT provisions for small businesses. When VAT was first introduced, it was done in a typical Customs and Excise manner, with huge detail making an administrative burden on small businesses. If the earlier leaks to the papers--not of this Statement--are correct, the Government are moving more towards the system which obtains for small businesses in France and elsewhere. It greatly reduces the amount of paperwork which small businesses have to undertake in respect of VAT, without undermining the tax take.
	I must also declare a personal welcome for one small measure in the VAT package; namely, the proposal to reduce VAT on repairs to churches. As a clergy's spouse, I see this as relieving me of a considerable number of fund-raising events to repair the church roof, and that is a hugely welcome personal prospect.
	I express support for the proposals in respect of cutting world poverty. The proposals are relatively shadowy but I am sure that the Minister and the Chancellor are only too well aware that the one way in which the Government can spend some of their £28 billion tax or debt repayment without incurring inflationary pressures in this country is to spend the money overseas. We look forward to ensuring that that increase is not the odd £10 million or £15 million, but a substantial sum devoted to the improvement of healthcare and the provision of medicine in the developing world.
	We welcome the environmental bias of the Chancellor's proposals on fuel. I believe that his motivation in respect of low sulphur petrol has more to do with shooting a Conservative fox--if that is not a politically incorrect metaphor--than with environmental benefits. I have two questions in respect of fuel duty. First, I understand that to be compatible with EU law the vignette scheme must apply to all vehicles and not just to non-UK registered vehicles entering the UK. I am not clear from reading the Statement, but will the vignette scheme apply to all UK-based lorries? Will they pay it? If so, are the figures which the Minister gave in respect of the benefits accruing from the VED cuts net after the vignette has been paid or gross before the vignette kicks in?
	Secondly, while welcoming the incentive to low sulphur petrol, as other and newer fuels are introduced which lead to lower levels of pollution--one thinks in particular of hydrogen to power non-polluting fuel cells--shall we have some commitment from the Chancellor that those new fuels will receive a substantial tax benefit compared with low sulphur petrol? That will kick-start those new technologies which are available and would make a huge difference to levels of pollution but which need further government support and incentives.
	We on these Benches believe that before today the Government's policy on pensions was parsimony with no purpose. The 75p pension increase last year was an insult to pensioners. Although we are grateful that the Government are at long last beginning to redress the shortfall in pension payments that that represents, we believe that they are doing too little, too late. I did not have the benefit of seeing in printed form before the Minister's Statement the detail of the Chancellor's pension proposals. They are extremely complicated. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not comment on them in greater detail.
	Finally, the disappointment on this side of the House is that the big issue facing manufacturers and farmers--namely, the overvaluation of the pound--has not been mentioned by the Chancellor in this Statement. He has nothing to say on it and nothing to offer. Will the Minister accept that the incentives proposed for manufacturing are completely inadequate to counteract the effect on the bulk of manufacturing industry of the overvaluation of the pound?
	After all the hype, and on his own figures, the Chancellor is still spending less of the national cake on schools and hospitals than did the Tories, because of implementing Conservative Budget cuts during his first three years. Bust for pensioners, schools and hospitals followed by an election boom is not a prudent way to run the country.
	There is much that we welcome in the Statement, but there is still much more to be done to rebuild the public services on which the well-being of all our communities depend.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may check that I have only two minutes in which to respond. I shall do my best. If I have to, I shall shut up.
	I do not have anything to reply to from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. He did not challenge any of the figures in the Pre-Budget Report. He did not challenge the analysis or the results of the analysis. He said that the only growth in the economy is in government tax receipts. He did not seem to recognise that the reason that there is a growth in government tax receipts is because we are paying less on social security and receiving more in taxes from those who have been put back to work. If that is not a fundamental misunderstanding, I do not know what is.
	The noble Lord complained about the complex tax structure; and of course he is right. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, recognises, from time to time we have to do something about it. But when the election comes I do not think that he will be going to the electorate with the banner, "Simpler tax". I think that there will be rather more important matters to refer to.
	The noble Lord's final point was about the House of Lords, which he claims to be more legitimate, in order that it may have more time to deal with financial matters. If that is the case, why did the Opposition not wish to have this Statement repeated in this House. The fact that this debate is taking place was dependent on the Liberal Democrat Party.
	I can treat rather more seriously the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, although perhaps he will forgive me if, because of limits of time, I do not thank him for the praise which he gave to large parts of the Statement. However, he made some specific points to which I wish to respond.
	On the question of the "Eurodisc"--the charge on lorries from other parts of Europe--applying on our roads, the noble Lord is correct: it will have to apply to UK lorries as well. But it is our intention to reduce vehicle excuse duties for UK lorries in order that they do not have any net increase in their burdens.
	The noble Lord asked about newer fuels than ultra low sulphur petrol. I do not think that there is an official policy on the subject, but I am sure that he and I agree that it would be extraordinary and out of character if, having given tax benefits for environmentally beneficial fuels, we did not carry that policy on as new fuels are developed, although neither he nor I knows what they will be.
	The noble Lord's final point was about the strong pound--or, as I think that he would agree, the weak euro. That is not an appropriate subject for the Pre-Budget Report, which is concerned mainly with the public finances. The Government agree with the European Central Bank that the euro is undervalued in relation to the pound. I think that the noble Lord draws the same conclusions from that as we do.

The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to give a particularly warm welcome to the Government's statement on VAT and church buildings. Church buildings are part of the nation's heritage. They are maintained and repaired by the Churches, in particular by the Church of England, on behalf of the whole community. The statement is welcome because, while the Churches currently receive about £20 million in public grants towards the maintenance and repair of those buildings, many of which are national architectural treasures, they have a current annual expenditure on VAT of more than £40 million, nearly £30 million of which is paid by the Church of England. In other words, the Churches currently have to pay in VAT more than double the amount that they receive in public grant.
	That unsatisfactory situation was recognised in a debate in the House in 1995. It forms the substance of the Eckstein report to be published later this month and has prompted strong personal representations to the Government by my colleagues the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on behalf of all the Churches.
	After years of difficult dialogue on the issue with both Conservative and Labour Governments, it is good to hear today's announcement, as far as it goes. However, there is still some way to go, as the Minister has made clear. The Government still have to refer the matter to the European Union. What will be the timetable for that? We need a timetable, not least to help in planning budgets and appeals for major maintenance and repairs and to ease the burden of fund-raising, particularly on noble clergy spouses--or is it clergy spice in the plural?
	Will the Minister also give an assurance that, in referring the matter to Europe, the Government will continue their present level of commitment and press the case with perseverance and vigour? I repeat that the announcement is most welcome and the Churches of all denominations will be grateful to the Government for it. Our welcome and gratitude will be even greater when the proposals are put into effect.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his welcome. I hope that he will not be disappointed, but the Statement was slightly elliptical. I said that the measure would cover repairs to churches, but I meant only repairs to listed places of worship. I think that he expected that, but I wanted to set the record straight. As to the timetable for getting the agreement of the European Commission, I can say only that we shall make an immediate application. The Commission has said that it will make no revision to legislation covering reduced rates until after 2002, but it has confirmed that it plans to report on the scope of reduced rates later this year. That is why it is important that we put our views on record as soon as possible.

The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's clarification, my warm welcome, though still genuine, is ever so slightly less warm than it was.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, would the word "tepid" apply?

Lord Boardman: My Lords, to what extent is the prior consent of the European Community needed for the Government's proposals to be carried out, apart from the question of repairs to churches?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is implicit in what I have said that the agreement of the European Commission is required for the change that we propose. However, as I made clear in my answer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield, the European Commission is already looking at revisions to legislation covering reduced rates. There is no question of the measure being ruled out from the start.

Baroness Castle of Blackburn: It is obvious to all of us that this complicated Statement will require careful study before we can assess exactly what it means. I shall give some examples, on which perhaps I shall get some enlightenment.
	I welcome the Government's recognition of the strength of the argument that some of us have been advancing for some years on the disincentive nature of means-testing. It is right to show concern for those who have been grumbling for a long time because they find that, having been prudent, saved, bought a house and got another pension, they are worse off than if they had spent the lot. I am glad that the Government recognise that we were right, but I should like the Minister to make it clear whether the Government have simply raised the ceiling, in which case the principle of disincentive remains. The Government talk about people who have made modest savings and modest investments in second pensions. No doubt we shall get enlightenment. Can we have a clearer explanation of whether this complicated Statement has removed the ceiling of disincentive?
	One other thing puzzles me. I should be glad if the Minister could alleviate my curiosity. If it is wrong in principle to give the benefits of an earnings link all the way up the line to everyone who has invested in the state insurance scheme because that would absorb resources that should go to the poor, why is it in principle right to increase the fuel allowance to £200 all the way up the line? Have I misunderstood? Will someone with £20,000 or £30,000 a year get the increased fuel allowance? If not, where will that contribution to income be cut off? I am sorry if I am being dense, but clearly stated principles help to ensure good government.
	Perhaps the Government are finally acknowledging that we were right when we said that operating complicated means tests was much more expensive than just giving people a hand-out as of right. Presumably the Government's line of thought may have been, "Oh well, it would be terribly complicated. We would have to peer into people's coal scuttles and then ask them what their income was". Or the Government's argument may be that this fuel increase--this contribution all the way up the line--is only a little one. Therefore, their illegitimate child is only very small.
	I should like to know what the Government's line of thought is. There are many other such queries that will have to be clarified and perhaps unearthed by questioning the Government before one can acclaim even the best parts of this Statement.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly welcome what my noble friend Lady Castle says about the need for further consideration and further discussion. Within the limits of the parliamentary time available, my noble friend Lady Hollis and I will be happy to participate in that.
	I suppose that it would be too much for me to expect a welcome from my noble friend for the substantial changes that are being introduced to alleviate and eliminate pensioner poverty. It would not have been in keeping with the way in which she has approached these issues. However, I believed that we had moved beyond the earnings link argument. I believed that we had reached the stage of showing that an earnings link applied to the basic state pension, which would cost £6 billion and would give £2 billion to those with an income of more than £20,000 a year; in other words, those least in need. I also believed that we had shown that the extension of the earnings link to those in need, as set out in detail in this Statement, is the right way to proceed. I still hope that we may reach agreement on that.
	As to whether that proposal is out of keeping with the £200 winter fuel allowance, I can only say to my noble friend what she very well knows: 30,000 pensioners die every year, partly because of lack of fuel. Pensioners tend to be at home more, they tend to live in less well insulated houses and, in humanitarian terms and in terms of social justice, this move seems to us to be the right way to proceed.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, in putting my question to the noble Lord, I declare that I am president of the National Home Improvement Council. In that capacity, I welcome the announcement that VAT cuts are to be made to reduce the cost of residential property conversions and that tax relief is to be given to bring empty flats over shops back into use. However, I wish to ask the noble Lord whether, in the pre-Budget consultation period, serious consideration will be given to extending VAT cuts to home improvement in general, bearing in mind that such improvements carry the full weight of VAT at 17.5 per cent, whereas new build carries no VAT and thus puts pressure on greenfield development, which I believe the Government wish to contain.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has made that case most effectively, not only now but over many years, and government must listen to him. He asked whether that case will be considered during the pre-Budget consultation period and the answer is certainly yes. However, the proposals put forward by the Government are as I have read out, and I am glad to have his modified welcome to them.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, declaring an interest as chairman of the St Albans Cathedral Trust, I wonder whether the Minister will accept the welcome that many of us feel for the measures in relation to listed church buildings. Does he also accept that it is very curious indeed for a sovereign parliament to have to ask permission from a foreign body before it can change taxation measures?
	Secondly, does the noble Lord accept that, perhaps on reflection, he was a little cavalier in his dismissal of the complications which now beset every business, particularly small businesses? Does he accept that through the nature of this particular chancellorship it is becoming increasing clear that complication is an attraction in itself? Further, does he accept that increasingly not only are we small businessmen becoming tax gatherers for the Government but that disincentive to investment and, indeed, to investment in this country as opposed to other countries is now very powerful as a result of the extraordinary complexity in which the Treasury seems to revel in administering its relationships with small business?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to what is proposed for VAT on churches. He will know that VAT as a European tax stems back to the Treaty of Rome, which his government signed, and that it has been consistent over both governments ever since. He will also know of the strong resistance shown by this Government and of their preparedness to use their veto against tax harmonisation when it is undesirable. In that sense, on that issue there should be no difference between the parties.
	I apologise if I appear to dismiss the importance of the complication of the tax system for small businesses. I did not mean to do so. As someone who spent 30 years running a small business, I recognise how difficult it is for people to keep up with the complicated system. However, I still insist that the VAT form is the worst part of that system and that, in comparison, everything else pales into insignificance. I was responding to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, who made a quite different point about the number of tax rates. However, that does not affect the problems for small businesses.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, with regard to the freeze on fuel duty, is my noble friend aware that many of us particularly welcome the principle set out by the Chancellor that, in relation to the OPEC increases, if the oil price remains high, the fuel duty freeze will continue not only until 2002 but until 2003? That will act as a type of automatic stabiliser and is a correct, coherent economic response to the problem of the large OPEC increase, side by side with our own fuel duty, earlier this year. It will enable us to meet our Kyoto commitment as regards the retail price of petrol and will smooth out the volatility in the Kyoto policy that would arise if there were to be disproportionate OPEC increases.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's comments, with which I agree, underline the importance of taking a longer-term view to these problems. He has emphasised what was said in the Statement: that, while problems in relation to high oil prices exist, the relief indicated in the Statement will continue, but not for longer. When the Statement referred to the representations made to the Chancellor, he, with his usual delicacy, avoided spelling out that those representations were being made by the Official Opposition and that they had changed somewhat over a number of weeks in September and October.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister will agree that the minimum income guarantee increase is welcome to those whom it will reach. However, I am sure that he understands that the problem is one of take-up. In that context, can he tell the House how much money has been budgeted as the cost of the increase in the minimum income guarantee?
	Perhaps I may also welcome the passage on page 5 of the Statement which draws the Government's attention to areas of high unemployment. Will the Minister agree that, in putting a contrast between old subsidies and new enterprises, there is an undistributed middle; that is, the future of those areas depends also on services such as banks, post offices, shops and, above all, transport? Will he ask his noble friend the Minister for Transport to bear in mind the phrase of my right honourable friend Mr Ashdown about Bristol Hartcliffe, that even the act of mourning only requires four buses.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the first question which the noble Earl asked is about the cost of the minimum income guarantee. He asked me to estimate its future take-up. Clearly, two factors will affect the take-up, neither of which we can fully assess. The first is that the increased generosity of the minimum income guarantee will encourage more people to take it up; the other is that any improvements which we can make in relation to simplicity--we referred in the Statement to being able to make an application by a phone call--also may increase the take-up. But we cannot say precisely how much that increase will be, so I am not able to answer that question at the moment.
	I am afraid that I did not understand the noble Earl's second question at all.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords--

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on a point of order, I think the government side has already had 10, if not 11, minutes of our time.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we do not have points of order--and we do not have any time left on this business.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Name of the police in Northern Ireland]:

Baroness Serota: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 1, I should point out to the House that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.

Lord Rogan: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 11 and insert ("be styled as "The Royal Ulster Constabulary--Police Service of Northern Ireland"").

Lord Rogan: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. Please let us for a moment reflect on why we are discussing the RUC name at all. The future name of the police service in Northern Ireland is being debated here today because some have mistakenly suggested that the current title "The Royal Ulster Constabulary" is a substantial barrier to creating a police service in Northern Ireland which reflects the society that it polices.
	As I stated in Committee, the objectionable aspects of this Bill are founded on misinformation, false logic and a misinterpretation of the Belfast agreement.
	Before the debate on Clause 1 progresses any further, I wish to address an important point of misinformation. Dropping the three words "Royal", "Ulster" and "Constabulary" from the name of the police in Northern Ireland will not--I stress, will not--solve the problem of Catholic under-representation in the police service. Dropping those three words will serve only to increase unionist disaffection with the manner in which the Belfast agreement has been implemented so far.
	The Government are continuing to consider the problem of Catholic under-representation in the police service, first, in ignorance of the most significant contributory factors; and, secondly, in ignorance of information that points towards those contributory factors as being the significant contributory factors.
	The Government are ignoring the issue of intimidation. The under-representation of Catholics in the current police service has been largely contributed to by intimidation. We all know that republicans intimidate young Catholic men and women not to join the police. When those young Catholic men and women, whose strong sense of public duty enabled them to overcome those obstacles so that they joined the police, the IRA then targeted them as a priority--a priority for murder. The IRA prioritised those Catholic officers for murder simply to deter any potential police recruits from their community and to deter other people from defying their dictates.
	Without an end to that despicable intimidation, dropping the "Royal" prefix will not provide us with the high numbers of Catholic applicants that we all desire.
	On Second Reading, I read a letter to the House on this very issue of intimidation. I feel it is necessary to repeat what I then read. The letter states:
	"I want to make my position clear to my co-Catholics in this part of Ireland. I joined the RUC in 1971 when living in Derry with my mother.
	My father died in 1964, leaving us a poor family financially. I joined the police to help my mother 'make ends meet'.
	When a prominent republican heard of this, he and three of his 'henchmen' called at my mother's house in the dead of night and threatened her, physically, over my job.
	She was told what they would do to her if I wouldn't resign, and her windows were broken to emphasise the point.
	That's the type now in government, that's why Catholics don't join the RUC. Pity these 'henchmen' don't have the background and good character required for the RUC".
	That letter, simply signed "good Catholic", was published in the Irish News on 27th July of this year. Even then, the "good Catholic" was anonymous for fear of intimidation. Republican "henchmen" still offer that brand of advice to young Catholics and they still expect it to be heeded.
	The Government are also ignoring the implicit discouragement by community leaders of the under-represented groups. Indeed, those community leaders are apparently in ignorance themselves of paragraph 15.2 of the Patten report. Community and other leaders of under-represented groups have continually failed to encourage young people from their communities to join the police.
	That encouragement is essential. As it is, that current lack of encouragement can only be perceived as discouragement by the under-represented groups themselves. The Patten report, in paragraph 15.2, stated the need for those community leaders to encourage under-represented groups to apply to join the police. Patten did not state that that paragraph was conditional on any other aspect of Patten. Indeed, Patten stated that the removal of all discouragements should be a priority.
	Those who view Patten as flawless should contemplate what has been done since the report was published to achieve the removal of discouragements at all, never mind as a priority. We all know what the answer is and "could do more" is a polite version.
	The Government are also ignoring the recent increase in Catholic applicants to the police service. As has been stated in this House and in another place, during the period between the paramilitary-termed "cessation of military operations" and the suspension of recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Catholic applications to the police doubled from 11 per cent to 22 per cent. That doubling of applicants occurred despite the lack of encouragement from community leaders of under-represented groups and despite the continuation of intimidation and, of course, despite what we are supposed to believe is the major bar to Catholic applicants, despite the name of the police having a "Royal" prefix.
	The Government are also in ignorance of the fact that young Irish Catholics simply do not avoid organisations with a "Royal" prefix. On the issue of that "Royal" prefix, I made my point clear in Committee. To my understanding, there is still no lack of young Irish Catholic sailors at the Royal Cork Yacht Club.
	I mentioned a list of organisations in Committee, including the Royal Dublin Society, and I will not labour that point again save to note that the Sinn Fein leadership had no problem holding its annual conference at the RDS in Dublin in 1999. The venue of the RDS, or the Royal Dublin Society, was not a cause for non-attendance at that Sinn Fein Ard Fheis.
	The Government are ignoring the unanimity of the Ulster peers in expressing their view in Committee in this House on the name change. Surely they cannot and should not continue to consider the name of the police service in Northern Ireland in ignorance of the continuing existence and effect of intimidation; in ignorance of the lack of support for under-represented groups from their community leaders; in ignorance of the recent rise in Catholic applicants without any name change; in ignorance of the polls in the Belfast Telegraph; and in ignorance of the views of the Ulster peers in this House.
	We have a reputation in Ulster for speaking plainly. I am speaking plainly now. Please remove the blinkers and stop reasoning by a process of selective causation. Patten recommended a new name for the police in Northern Ireland. The amendments I am putting forward this evening offer that new, double-barrelled name. Patten recommended continuity between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the reformed police service. These amendments provide that continuity, respectfully recognising the dedication and sacrifice of officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
	These amendments provide a means of dealing with the name issue within the parameters of Patten. They provide the best means of reversing increasing unionist disaffection with the implementation of the Belfast agreement and reversing increasing unionist disaffection with policing reform. Dispensing completely with the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will not significantly increase the number of Catholic applicants to the police. That fact must now be clear.
	As I have already stated, Patten identified the best means of redressing under-representation in the police force in paragraph 15.2. Let me briefly remind your Lordships, and especially the leaders of under-represented groups, what it said. Patten stated,
	"We therefore recommend that all community leaders, including political party leaders and local councillors, bishops and priests, schoolteachers and sports authorities, should take steps to remove all discouragements to members of their communities applying to join the police, and make it a priority to encourage them to apply".
	Just as strongly as I urge your Lordships tonight to support Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, I urge those leaders to re-read paragraph 15.2 and make that encouragement a belated priority. I beg to move.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, on 23rd October, on the first day of Committee on this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made a notable and courageous speech. In it he said that the debate on the precursor to Amendment No. 1 was really a debate about the constitution of Northern Ireland. He said that survey after survey showed that many Catholics support the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and that unionists now feel as he did when, in 1968, he marched in support of a campaign to secure civil rights for Northern Ireland under the Stormont regime. He spoke as one who still retained a bloodstained shirt from the blow that he received from the RUC on that occasion. He said that the unionists felt that their entire culture has been taken away from them; that pan-nationalism is ranged against them and that they have no one who can speak in their defence.
	The noble Lord said that he spoke as a Catholic; that he spoke with a conscience, and he said,
	"I support the retention of the name of the RUC".--[Official Report, 23/10.00; col. 26.]
	I recognise that there is a tendency among those of us who have lived for even a few years in Northern Ireland and sometimes less, to speak as though we know it all; and perhaps some of us know some of it. But none of us knows it as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other Members of your Lordships' House know it who live and have always lived in the Province. I believe the noble Lord was right to say that this is essentially a debate about the constitution. No police service, in any democracy, can exercise authority save by virtue of the constitution of the state which it is there to serve. In the case of the RUC that state is, by consent, the United Kingdom.
	The RUC therefore is a police service empowered by the Crown. So long as the Union persists, any police service in Northern Ireland, by whatever name we call it, will be and will remain a service empowered by the Crown. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also said, there are also Catholics--no doubt they are in the majority--who are nationalists and object to any jurisdiction of the Crown in Northern Ireland. They continue to object to it notwithstanding the Belfast agreement, and that is their right. They will have nothing to do with the Crown in any of its manifestations.
	So it follows that no police service in Northern Ireland empowered by the Crown will ever be seen by Catholics of that opinion as being "their" police service. I pick up the phrase the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, made much of in his speech, when he spoke so helpfully last time about Liverpool; but nobody who feels like that will feel about any police service that derives its authority from the Crown that it is "their" police service. So they will not join it and in that regard the Government--I regret to say--are in pursuit of a chimera for so long as the Union persists.
	Does that put paid to our efforts, which we all share, to add to the number of Catholics in the police? It does not. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, again pointed out, there are other powerful factors which inhibit Catholics from joining. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, adverted to some of them. He cited hideous intimidation; the withholding of endorsement of that profession by the Catholic hierarchy and even by the constitutional nationalist party, the SDLP. He might have added the lack hitherto of the substantial improvements--they constitute about 85 per cent of the recommendations of the Patten report--which are now either already in place or provided for in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in support of his argument, pointed to the surge in Catholic recruitment to the RUC which took place after the cease-fire of August 1994 and to its ebbing away when intimidation seemed to be sustained and much sectarian violence also continued.
	On that occasion no answer was put forward from the Government Front Bench to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, or other noble Lords who made similar points. I, from my slender experience in comparison with that of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, believe that there is no answer. As yet we are still invited to adopt a name in which the words Royal Ulster Constabulary will, except in the most formal of legal contexts, by the Government's own design and desire, never be used. The sole purpose is the vain hope of getting more Catholics of a nationalist character, such as I have described, to join the police service, and they will not.
	The recommendations of the Patten report have elevated the issue of the name into most dangerous prominence and significance, and I wish that it had not been so. But we are where we are. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I am deeply worried about the condition and state of the unionist community in Northern Ireland. And by that I do not mean the extremities of that community.
	The ferocity with which a change of name is demanded, and with no promise of nationalist support at the end--there are only threats of regression if a change is not made--has reinforced the siege mentality with which so many unionists have for so long been cursed. They see the name of the RUC as an incident of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, and I wish that it were otherwise. They see the pressure for change as a denial of that status. They see the implementation of a change as a harbinger of the further and worse inroads that they fear. And until there is some beginning to decommissioning, they feel that they have had enough. Those mounting perceptions, and especially the loss of the RUC name, are deeply dangerous to the position of Mr Trimble.
	I have the utmost admiration for the courage, perception and wisdom of Mr Mallon in this long process. He is reported as saying that no one is indispensable to the political process in Northern Ireland. I fear that he is wrong. At least one man is and at this juncture it is Mr Trimble. It is now a political imperative that Mr Trimble remains in place. He could not be restored. I believe that that imperative now requires that the amendment be agreed to.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment. In Committee I introduced several amendments which went in the Patten direction, but this amendment moves further away from Patten than even the Bill proposes.
	I cannot claim to have lived or to have worked in an administrative capacity in Northern Ireland. However, for the past 50 years, since I was a small child in India, I have read about Ireland and Northern Ireland. We forget that the entire issue should be seen against a background history of 80 years, not just the past 30. It is strange that a majority community which has all the instruments of power at its disposal has, after 30 years in an embattled state, achieved a good agreement--call it "Belfast" or "Good Friday"--but it is a compromise between the Republic, the United Kingdom and various communities in Northern Ireland.
	Having achieved such a delicate compromise, people want to return to the status quo. But the old status quo did not work. It is not a question of whether the Royal Ulster Constabulary was a brave force of law. It was and it made many sacrifices. But, as Patten said, if the new police service is identified with the centre of political argument of Northern Ireland, there will be two consequences: first, whatever people say, there will be problems with recruitment; and, secondly, the service will not command the free support and loyalty of everyone in Northern Ireland.
	It is not merely a matter of recruitment; people have to like their police service. Like it or not, the truth is that a substantial minority does not approve of the police service. They will if we move away from the past and rename the service "Police Service of Northern Ireland". I do not like the compromise of incorporation but I can live with it. We must compromise; we cannot return to the old position because that got us into all this trouble.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the position which the Government have put to the House tonight. I do so recalling my maiden speech in this House. I said that I came from a mixed marriage of a Catholic and a Protestant. My late mother was from the west of Ireland and was an Irish speaker. On my father's side, my uncle died when serving in the RAF and my father served in the 8th Army. I said that you did not have to hate one country because you loved another. The dilemma for the nationalist community in Northern Ireland is learning to love their police force; learning to like and love the institutions in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, described.
	In another place, I readily rose to support the then Northern Ireland Secretary, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. He performed an enormous service in bringing about reconciliation and progress in the north of Ireland and I rarely found myself in disagreement with him. However, I believe that on balance the expectation has been raised through Patten that there will be a change in name and ethos in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and that if that is not now delivered it will in turn endanger the peace process.
	I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the position of David Trimble is crucial and that your Lordships and another place must do nothing whatever to undermine his position. He is crucial to facilitating the process. I also agreed with the noble and learned Lord that we must learn to place ourselves in the shoes of those on the other side of the community. After 70 years of, certainly perceived, discrimination and prejudice in Northern Ireland, it has been difficult for nationalists to make a transition and to understand that there is fear, but uncertainty, in the unionist community and that they must make that transition.
	In 1985 I served as a member of the then Liberal/SDP Alliance commission which examined the politics of Northern Ireland. Another member of the group was the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who had given distinguished service to the British military, had climbed Everest and had also written a significant report on the reform of the UDR. Lord Donaldson was also a member of the group. He had been a Minister in a previous Labour government and had served in Northern Ireland. We were given wide access to all the senior figures in the RUC and the military in Northern Ireland. Time and again, while we were able to see the work that was being done we could see the need for change. Even at that time our recommendations called for a change in the name of the RUC.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, rightly told your Lordships, the number of applicants rose after the cease-fire but has since ebbed away, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, described. However, approximately 93 per cent of the RUC remains Protestant, despite the fact that in the general demography of the population of Northern Ireland 40 per cent are Catholic.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said that many other institutions have the prefix "Royal" in their name and he gave as an example the Royal Yacht Club. However, I put it no higher than that to equate a yacht club with the police force in Northern Ireland is to misunderstand the depth of feeling. I do not believe that that will help to dispel the mistrust which many people in the north of Ireland still feel.
	When I was in the Province last week, I made a point of speaking to a number of people in the nationalist community and in the Catholic hierarchy. I read the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and felt that a number of points should be pursued. People in the nationalist community reiterated the kind of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in his first-class address in Committee. They said that the RUC did not represent or protect them and still believed that there was some collusion with Protestant paramilitaries. They still talked about the killings. They referred to the lawyer Rosemary Nelson, who was blown up as she drove to work last year, and said that despite all of the representations to provide her with greater protection none had been given.
	Despite the bravery which the RUC has undoubtedly shown, not least at Drumcree and on many other occasions, and its commitment to duty and professionalism, the perception of that community is all. Until that changes it is difficult to see how we shall secure the four points referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in Committee: political control, management, composition and conduct. It is difficult to see how one can properly and adequately bring those four points into perspective and ensure that the concerns which have always been raised become matters of the past.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he explain why the views of the Catholic community that he reflects are not also reflected in public opinion polls run by any reputable newspaper in Northern Ireland or any other body?

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords understand that I do not seek to reflect the views of the Catholic community. I give my own views based on conversations last week in Northern Ireland. It was the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, who, from the same Benches, told Her Majesty's Government that since the peace process began the key issue was intimidation. If the noble Lord reads what I have said previously in your Lordships' House and in another place, he will see that I have regularly criticised the knee-capping and intimidation campaigns of organisations like the IRA to try to impose lynch-mob rule. That is wholly unacceptable. I passionately believe in upholding the law and a police force which does that by consent. I believe that that unites everybody in the Chamber today.
	Last week I asked a Catholic bishop why the hierarchy had not urged members of its community to play a greater role in the police force. He said that the hierarchy had never asked people to join the Garda. I said that that was not in itself an adequate response, given the circumstances in Northern Ireland. I support the observations made last week that the hierarchy in Northern Ireland must do more to encourage members of the nationalist community to accept the police service and join it. They should be convinced that the service is there for all members of the Northern Ireland community and participate in it. Therefore, in these unique circumstances the Church has a duty to underline the necessity of policing by consent and encourage Catholics to play a full part in that service. Patten recommended a neutral name, badge and flag.
	The Secretary of State made clear in his remarks on 15th June that those were issues upon which he would act. He said that he remained absolutely determined to implement the Patten recommendations and achieve an effective and representative policing service which was accepted by every part of Northern Ireland. He is right. I believe that the Government deserve our full support for the proposals that they have placed before your Lordships' House. In turn, they deserve the wholehearted support of the Catholic community and its hierarchy in the creation of a police force which can serve both traditions in Northern Ireland in a fair, impartial and scrupulous manner.

Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may put a question to him since he complained about the ethos of the RUC being unattractive to Roman Catholics. He advances that proposition as one of the reasons why proportionately there are too few Catholics on the force. Can the noble Lord tell the House what proportion of the Garda is made up of Protestants? Is it not less than 1 per cent, and should there not be some symmetry in these matters?

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, there is certainly symmetry in the arguments which I have placed before your Lordships' House. I hope that, although there is a much smaller percentage of Protestants living in the Republic of Ireland than there are Catholics living in Northern Ireland, nevertheless they would join Garda Siochana in the same way as I argue that nationalists in Northern Ireland should join the police force there. I refer the noble Lord to paragraph 17.4 on page 98 of the Patten report where it is said:
	"Many people in Northern Ireland from the Irish nationalist and republican tradition regard the name, badge and symbols of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as associating the police with the British constitution and state. This contributes to the perception that the police are not their police".
	That is the issue before your Lordships' House.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments. I say to both the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Desai, and the Government that their arguments sound plausible but are based on one major assumption. They are wrong to assume that, having changed the name, there will be increased participation in, and enthusiasm for, the service by the Catholic Church, the SDLP and Sinn Fein. Many noble Lords and Members of another place have said that the price for future recognition of the police force by those communities is the change of name. I beg to differ. That is an incredibly naive attitude. People hide behind the Patten report and say that it says this or that. Many things have been written down on paper which do not take place. Patten assumed that that might be right before the proposals were put to those sections of the population. Those sections of the population have said categorically that, regardless of the change of name, they will not support the proposals. Therefore, this is not a compromise that is of benefit to our community in Northern Ireland and will get us nowhere.
	Like the Patten report, the Bill is divided into two parts. One is concerned with operational reforms. We are entirely behind operational reforms which bring us up to date with other police forces in the United Kingdom and enable us to learn lessons from other nations. There are also cosmetic reforms. The alteration of the name, badge and so on are straightforward cosmetic changes as the price for the involvement of that community. One does not buy something like that if one receives nothing in return. There is no reason why these groups in our society should fail to come forward, except that the new beginning about which the Government and some noble Lords speak is not the same as the new beginning in the mind of some groups, especially Sinn Fein, which control through the intimidation that people agree exists.
	Their new beginning, which is not ours, means the continuation of racketeering, beatings and other criminal activities. Such activity does not simply occur on the streets of Belfast on a day-to-day basis; it is deep-seated fraud which will require an extremely experienced unit of any police force to tackle. What they want is the police service as it is now out of the way. If they achieve that they will continue what they are doing now.
	That is what is happening, and until we realise it we shall get nowhere. Even the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, envisages a change of name. But surely there should be a return from the other side for these cosmetic changes. We cannot see anything in the near future, and we are nowhere nearer to it than when we started. I shall not return to the release of prisoners. They have demanded this and that and have decided not to play a part in the law and order of their own society because, through their corrupt ways, they want to maintain a hold on it. I support the amendments.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I was unable to take part in the earlier stages of the Bill but, as far as I could, I followed the written word. Sadly, the written word does not always give one quite the flavour of the occasion. I rise this evening to support this group of amendments. It seems to me that there are two or three points which may be worth making. I hate to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, because I often find myself in a good deal of sympathy with what he says on other subjects. But I think the point which he neglects is that the function of a police service in the United Kingdom is to uphold the Queen's peace. That is what it is there for: the upholding of the Queen's peace. Unless and until Northern Ireland is transferred to another jurisdiction, it is the Queen's peace which must be upheld. It is a police force of the state of the United Kingdom. It is not surprising that it should expect to carry in its uniform and its title a recognition of that fact. I find that wholly unsurprising. I do not expect the Garda to do so. I fail to see why anyone should expect the police force in Northern Ireland not to carry those symbols in its work of upholding the Queen's peace.
	I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but he spoke of the nationalists' expectations which had been aroused by the Patten report. Quite so, but unionist expectations were aroused by the Good Friday agreement; not least the expectation that violence would cease and that private armies would be dismantled and their weapons decommissioned. Those expectations were aroused; they have in no way been satisfied. To move on and say that because Patten has aroused expectations, we must give in, we must give something else, is a one-way traffic situation. Of course, in a rational world perhaps the unionist community and the police force in Northern Ireland could be generous and relaxed about losing some of these symbols had they received anything in exchange for what they have already given up under the Good Friday agreement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, like other noble Lords, spoke of the desirability of a police force which could police by consent. But he knows, as we all know, that there is a minority in Northern Ireland which will not consent to any police force which is under the jurisdiction of the British Crown and of this Parliament. It would not matter what one called the police force. It would not matter if we re-christened it the Garda. It would still not accept its jurisdiction and its authority while that authority came from Her Majesty and the constitutional monarchy and the Parliament of this Kingdom. Therefore, I fail to see any evidence from our experience of the past years since the Good Friday agreement that making this concession to the republicans will make any difference whatever to their conduct--none at all. What it will do will be once again to disappoint and to anger the majority community which feels that the Good Friday agreement has not been implemented by the republican and nationalist community in Northern Ireland.
	When we talk of the desirability of sustaining Mr Trimble and his pivotal place in the peace process, surely we do not want to do something else which will put him into greater difficulty with the unionist community which rightly says, "Why have we been betrayed in this manner?".

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he not agree--to continue his argument a little further--that these terrorist crimes are not just committed in Northern Ireland in ignorance of the Northern Ireland police, but also in the Republic of Ireland where there is a police force which is loyal to the government there?

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a good point. Indeed, the crimes are also committed on this side of the water.

Lord Alli: My Lords, I want to support the Government's position on the Bill and to speak against this group of amendments.
	I have spent much time over the past few years in Northern Ireland. It is a place I have learned to enjoy and its people are a people whose bravery I much admire. All my contact with the new generation of parliamentarians has shown me a generation of able politicians committed to making a real change. I have learned two things about the politics of Northern Ireland: first, things are rarely as they seem; and, secondly, there are no absolutes.
	There is little we can do here to move the peace forward, but there is much we can do to undermine the process. If we load the Bill with unintended, unnegotiated amendments, we shall only upset this fragile process. We all share the outrage, anger and loathing at what sometimes goes on in the name of peace. But this peace process is just that--a process--and there are still important steps to take.
	The Bill is a further important step. It has been brought before us to implement the recommendations of the Patten commission. That commission was designed to bring forward proposals which would produce a police service capable of gaining sustained support across all communities in Northern Ireland. The Bill is important and complex. It sets out a whole series of changes which will transform the nature and culture of the police service in Northern Ireland; none more so than this change of name.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place said that while he was committed to implementing the full recommendations of the Patten report, he was willing to listen to any constructive comments on the Bill itself. He would make changes where constructive comments were made. I welcome the fact that he and the Government chose to accept the new clause moved by Ken McGuinness. Clause 1 provides that,
	"the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall continue in being as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary)".
	But also allows that it,
	"shall be styled for operational purposes the 'Police Service of Northern Ireland'".
	The amended Bill now offers a less than perfect way forward, but none the less it is a way forward. The new name of the "Police Service" signals, one hopes, a new start, a new beginning. Yet the full name which will be in the title deeds of the service keeps a link with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and all those who fell in service during the Troubles.
	I have said that we here at Westminster can do little practically to speed the peace process. In a very real sense it is the people's future and it is for them to make that future for themselves. However, tonight we have an opportunity to assist them in moving forward with a solution. We are--if noble Lords will pardon the expression--caught between a rock and a hard place. I am sure that all involved in the peace process will examine our comments and read Hansard with care. By the end of today we shall have put our advice and counsel on record. I believe that we shall have done our bit.
	This may not be a perfect Bill. It may not even be a perfect peace. But we do not live in a perfect world. I urge noble Lords to support the speedy passage of the Bill and to leave it unencumbered so that those who are in the business of negotiating peace have all that they need to move forward. I wish them Godspeed in their endeavours.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am a great believer in the letter of the law and what governments officially say. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in the Belfast agreement it was agreed that,
	"it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people".
	It then went on to say that,
	"the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality".
	What we are looking at is partiality; the tyranny of the minority; and the effort to give one more sop to terrorists.
	I should like to quote also from the security statement in the Northern Ireland Office Departmental Report. It states that the objective is to,
	"keep security policy ... under continuous review in the light of changes in the level of threat from terrorism".
	There have indeed been changes--for the worse. Therefore, to make this move and to ignore the feelings of the majority of the people and of the experienced officers of the RUC is very dangerous.
	I remind the House that, pragmatically, we on this side of the water need an efficient and effective police force. Although the officers of the RUC are loyal and highly intelligent and wish largely to get on with their jobs, nevertheless this issue matters greatly to them. It matters also to the Catholics among them who are not deterred from joining and who wanted to join, as has been mentioned, in the face of intimidation. It is wrong that, for reasons of political correctness and to please the IRA--that is what it is--we are trying to do something but are once more ignoring another important aspect of the Belfast agreement with which we are so often inflicted. It states:
	"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need ... to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division. Arrangements will be made to monitor this issue".
	We are looking at a symbol which really matters to the people who are serving in the RUC. Even if this change goes ahead and the force is required to have a 50 per cent quota of Catholics, there is no certainty that the IRA will allow anyone to join the RUC. One will therefore see a drain of highly efficient and experienced officers, who will feel that they have been totally rejected and their interests set aside in favour of a very, very doubtful quota which may or may not come in, and, if it has Catholics at all, may well contain "sleepers" who are there for reasons which will not be helpful to security.
	I remind the House that Gerry Adams has said many times that whatever is done to the RUC he and his supporters will not recognise it and will not support it. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, also made that point. If they will not support it and continue to make it extremely dangerous to join, except with special permission, I cannot see the point of hurting and insulting indeed the majority in favour of a tiny minority which is utterly convinced that it will not co-operate. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5, and to support Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan.
	It has been a wide-ranging debate and we have heard most of the arguments before. What is sad is that progress is very slow. The situation does not change. Let us consider for a few moments the environment that pervades in Northern Ireland. How did we get to the peace agreement, the Good Friday agreement, the Belfast agreement, or whatever it is called? Why was it necessary? The main objective of the agreement was to stop Sinn Fein/IRA murdering people and to attempt to remove the motivation for loyalist terrorists to murder people. That is why we are there; let us be quite clear about that. Let us also be quite clear that this debate is not about one of the finest police forces in the world. It is about the name of a police force. Thanks to the Patten report, that proud name has been lifted from the force and put into the political arena as a football or rugby ball to be kicked around, unfortunately by politicians from all parties and several nations, with scant regard for the members of that proud force.
	We need a police force in Northern Ireland. We have a serious crime situation. We have a serious terrorist situation, whether anyone likes it or not. It is vital that we have a fine, well-trained, well-equipped, loyal and neutral police force. That police force--what is today the RUC--has proved itself in recent years to be all of those things. I accept that in the days of my father and others in Stormont things were different. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned his maiden speech. I used Bernadette Devlin's maiden speech as a basis for my maiden speech in this House. I made the point then that she was right in most of what she said in her maiden speech. But the environment had changed. We had an equality commission and a fair employment commission. The environment over there had changed. There was not a need for that kind of uprising and trouble making. But, of course, the IRA jumped on the band wagon and attempted to pursue a campaign, which it did very successfully for 30 years, to unite Ireland by force. All sides have been protected and cared for by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
	The Good Friday agreement is about sharing. It is about an inclusive community. It is about bringing together various groupings who have been at war with one another and have been forced to create barriers between each other. It is about creating an all-inclusive society to live in this kingdom in a law-abiding manner. I suggest to the House that Her Majesty's Government, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Armed Forces and people in many walks of life, from those who work in industry, the Civil Service and quangos to those who serve in the police force, have worked extremely hard to bring about that society. Who has not played a part in bringing about that society? Who has so far given nothing? The answer is the IRA--the terrorists--and to a large extent, although I know that people will talk to me about Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, the Irish Government.
	To return to my theme of sharing, surely to goodness, if we are to have an all-inclusive society, we must have one police force. And surely to goodness that one police force must consist of people from all the different quarters of the Province. We need people from Derry, West Belfast, Armagh, Enniskillen, South Tyrone and elsewhere to make that an inclusive police force. That is vital. What is stopping it? The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made the point very clearly. It is the nationalist community and the Roman Catholic Church. I am delighted that many noble Lords and many people outside have, privately and publicly, put tremendous pressure on the Roman Catholic hierarchy in an attempt to get that changed.
	However, the purpose of my comments tonight is this: the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will not make any difference to the content or the performance of that police force. If the nationalist and republican communities--who, as I have said already, have agreed to serve in one of Her Majesty's governments--are prepared to join in, why are they not prepared to share in the name? That is the nub of our amendment. A shared name allows those who attach memories to it, to whom it means a huge amount and who believe in it, to feel comfortable. Let us also incorporate another name, the "Northern Ireland Police Service", which is new and has been created in the new image of sharing and community spirit. Let the two names come together in agreement. Do not let them become belligerent, bitter, antagonistic and obstructive. That is of no use to anyone.
	I do not believe that the total removal of the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is right. A form of shared option is the correct course. In conclusion, perhaps I may lighten the tone of my speech by giving the Government a little piece of advice. Appeasement never won a race yet: "Bad horse, bred by good intentions, out of paralysis of will". The Irish people are a racing fraternity and they will understand that.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is clear that this debate goes to the heart of many of the issues affecting Northern Ireland. To me, it is a matter of great regret that in this House there is no voice to represent democratic constitutional nationalism for Northern Ireland. That would bring balance to our debate and would ensure that we were able to hear directly the voice of a large group of people in Northern Ireland who have serious concerns about the way in which their communities have been policed over the past 30 to 50 years.
	If I were an officer in the RUC, my reaction to this debate would be, "For heaven's sake, get on with the Bill. Get it out of the way. We don't want to be a political football any more". The officers of the RUC, of whom I have met quite a few over the years, just want to be able to get on with their jobs. They do not want to become an element in party politics. They do not want to be kicked around by politicians, which has been going on since the Patten report was published; indeed, even before that. They simply want to do their jobs. However, as with all police officers everywhere, they want to be able to do their jobs knowing that they have the consent and support of the communities which they are policing. It seems to me as regards the average RUC officer, who is dedicated, brave and professional, that we are asking a great deal of them when we ask them to police areas of Northern Ireland where they are not operating with the consent of the people in the local community.
	I understand that surveys have shown that Catholics are supportive of the RUC. However, they do not demonstrate support to the same extent as Protestants. Catholic communities do not have that bedrock of consent that ought to be in place in order to achieve good policing. Surely that is what Patten set out to put right and forms the basis of the Bill which the Government have put forward.
	It was a great source of regret to me that, within hours of the Patten report being released--I was still a Minister in Northern Ireland at the time--shrieks and shouts of condemnation were aimed at it even before many people could have had a chance to do more than open the first page or two. That set the tone for a debate which has never been calm or sufficiently dispassionate to put first and foremost the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. Set positions have made life in Northern Ireland difficult. They have also made policing in Northern Ireland very difficult indeed.
	What matters here is this: so far as concerns policing, this is a battle for the hearts and minds of the vast majority of peaceful members of the national community. I do not believe that any Bill would persuade Sinn Fein or the IRA to say, "Wonderful. This is the best thing ever". But that is not the intention here. We need to address the constitutional nationalists; namely, the ordinary, decent, peace-loving members of the Catholic community. It is their support that we want for policing in Northern Ireland, because once their support has been secured, then the men of violence will be marginalised and those that do not like proper policing in Northern Ireland will also be marginalised.
	I think that Patten addressed that intention very clearly and achieved a pretty good outcome. The Bill before the House is a reflection of it. What we want to see is a representative police service. As long as 93 per cent of police officers are Protestant, how can the average Catholic feel that this is, "our police force"? It is impossible to expect that.
	No single proposal in the Patten report will change everything, and thus we have to consider all the detail. The right approach is to view the Patten proposals as a package. The different elements contained in the Patten report, as reflected in this legislation, can and will contribute to a successful conclusion. I believe that, once this legislation has been passed, it will send a clear signal to all the people of Northern Ireland that we are entering a new age when policing will be conducted with the consent of everyone. That will happen only when we get rid of the symbols, emblems and other items of a police force which indicate that it is not a force for the whole community. That is an important and worthwhile aim. A little vision is required in order to carry this through for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why I feel that these amendments are wrong in principle and damaging in practice. I hope that the House will reject them.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in speaking to the first group of amendments, and in opposing them, I shall begin with an observation. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has pointed out, debates on Northern Ireland issues in your Lordships' House inevitably lack an important dimension. While the concerns of the Unionist community are given a full airing--and quite properly so--those of the nationalist community, almost axiomatically, are not so directly heard. The other place has at least the constitutional Nationalist opinion expressed by the three SDLP Members of Parliament. There is no authentic nationalist voice in our debates, in the same way that the British-Irish interparliamentary body is deprived of any direct unionist contribution to its debates because the unionists decline to participate in its activities.
	I am neither pro-unionist nor pro-nationalist, but I think that it is important to stress the disadvantage under which noble Lords labour by not having nationalist opinion directly reflected in their debates in the same way as that of unionist opinion. As I have said, I am not in any way partisan as between any legitimate aspirations, be they unionist or nationalist, but I recognise the objective fact here; namely, the strength of nationalist feeling on the issues of policing in Northern Ireland.
	In my time in Northern Ireland, I can honestly say that I never came across either a Catholic family or a Catholic authority that would encourage younger members of their community to consider a job in the RUC. I accept the fact of intimidation, but that is by no means the whole story. The name, with its distant historical legacy, is an impediment to Catholic recruitment. Members on all sides of your Lordships' House have expressed a strong wish to see Catholics serve in much greater numbers in the newly established police service--ultimately to the point where the number of Catholic police officers is proportional to the number of Catholics in the population as a whole. That will not happen, as Patten recognised, unless Catholic parents, Catholic political leaders and the Catholic hierarchy feel able to encourage Catholic recruitment to the police service.
	A number of noble Lords have already said that a change of name is a necessary prerequisite for the new start for policing in Northern Ireland, based on the consent of both communities. Such a change need in no way detract from the achievements of the RUC in the recent past, but a change of name addresses the future purposefully and positively.

Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord deplores the historical legacy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but does he realise that the RUC stems from the Royal Irish Constabulary, the great majority of whose members were Roman Catholic?

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I was aware of that historical continuity.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. Your Lordships may remember that I spoke to this issue at the Committee stage. I rise to speak to it again because I was not satisfied with the Minister's statement at the end of the previous debate.
	With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, let me say at the outset that it is the Government who have turned the policing issue in Northern Ireland into a political football. However, I can assure the House that I shall confine my remarks to the amendment.
	It would appear that the Government use the Patten report when it suits them but disregard it altogether when it does not accord with their demands. Chapter 17.7 of the Patten report states:
	"We consider it important that the link between the RUC and the new Northern Ireland Police Service be recognised".
	No real link with the RUC will be retained if we change the title, the cap badge and the insignia, and retain only the green-coloured uniform. Perhaps I may ask the Minister: where are and what are the links that will be retained, as proposed in the report? There will certainly be no linkage if the title becomes the "Police Service of Northern Ireland (RUC)". If the title "Police Service of Northern Ireland" without "(RUC)" is to be used for all operational purposes--working, public, legal, ceremonial, administrative, presentational and recruitment--and, as I expect, on letter heads, the name of the RUC will soon be totally and completely forgotten. It may be that that is the Government's intention. It may be that they want to ensure that the title of the RUC is totally forgotten.
	The Secretary of State has said that introducing a dual name would not be good for the cohesion and unity--and therefore the effectiveness--of the police. I totally disagree. Is the Minister aware that, for any organisation, a loss of identity leads only to low morale and inefficiency? Is this what the Government are trying to achieve at a time when policing in Northern Ireland is as difficult as it ever was? I have been a member of an advisory board for two regimental amalgamation committees over the past years. Unless the best is taken from the old organisation and included into the new organisation, the new body quickly becomes dissatisfied and performs badly. Surely this is not what we are trying to achieve.
	As has been said repeatedly, a survey in the Belfast Telegraph some time ago indicated that 61 per cent of the Catholic community are not offended by the name and identity of the RUC. Many of this community strongly support being a part of the United Kingdom. It is intimidation that stops many Catholics from joining the RUC; it has nothing to do with the title.
	I was not satisfied with the Minister's response at the Committee stage. It is for these reasons that I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the key to this debate is the assertion by those noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendments that if the name is changed to the one in the Bill, and if the "Royal Ulster Constabulary" is abandoned as the name, that will have no impact on the composition of the police force in Northern Ireland thereafter. If that be true, I would have to vote in favour of the amendments. I am sure that most noble Lords would feel the same.
	However, it seems to me an improbable assertion--and it is an assertion. It is improbable in one obvious particular--namely, that the very passion with which the argument that there must be no change in the name is advanced, must surely beget in the Catholic community an equal and opposite sense that there is a great significance in the continuance of the name "Royal Ulster Constabulary".

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. My discussions, such as they have been, with Sinn Fein have led me to believe that it has little or no intention of recommending to members of the nationalist community that they should join the police force should the name be changed. Despite much persuasion and discussions with the Roman Catholic Church, its response has been the same.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for that information. I would not seek to deny it. However, I would suggest that the view of Sinn Fein and the view of the Catholic Church are not all commanding in Northern Ireland. The fact that 7 per cent of the RUC at the moment are Roman Catholics is evidence of that; the fact that the numbers applying to enter the RUC have risen from 11 per cent to 22 per cent since the Belfast agreement is evidence of that.
	I suggest that the best thing we can do in this House is to reach out to the majority of reasonable Catholics in Northern Ireland who have some mind of their own; who are influenced by the efforts being made on all sides to try to end these historic divisions. Painful though it is, I believe that Patten did not reach this conclusion in a quixotic frame of mind but on the basis of the extensive soundings and evidence that he and his commission had taken.
	I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who made the point that there is at present in Northern Ireland a massive amount of fraud, intimidation and criminality. Plainly, one element in the amelioration of that dreadful state of affairs has to be a more effective police force in the province. For those reasons, I am afraid that I shall have to vote against the proposed amendments.

Lord Shepherd: My Lords, at the Committee stage we spent some two-and-a-quarter hours debating this difficult subject. The debate so far today seems to have followed very much the same pattern as the debate in Committee. One does not make any criticism of that--it is a difficult issue--but I wonder whether it is in the interests of the Bill. There is still much to be done. Your Lordships will certainly wish to see that it is done and that there is a reasonable amount of time in which to discuss these matters, but perhaps the House believes--like me--that we should gracefully bring this particular discussion to a conclusion.
	I do not know whether the Leader of the House can suggest any procedure under which this can be achieved. I do not think so. I think it is a matter for the assent of the House. If we were to proceed in this way, I suggest that, after the Minister has spoken, those noble Lords who have brought forward the amendments should make their final remarks and that we should then reach a conclusion one way or the other.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he would like to draw the debate on the amendment to a close. I should make some little contribution on this issue. I have said before in the House that I am a Catholic. I hope that I continue to be a Catholic for many years to come or for as long as I live. So this is not particularly a Catholic and Protestant issue in relation to the RUC.
	I want to address noble Lords on this side of the House. I do so with a great deal of sensitivity. For many years, as a Member of another place, I was involved in numerous controversial issues. On some matters about which I felt passionately, I was able to enlist many of my friends, some of whom were Left-wing and some of whom were middle-of-the-road. Many times, against the wishes of the government--a Labour government--we took our attitudes to a Division. People did not like it; they were very annoyed that we did so. Sometimes it involved 20, 30 or 40 Members.
	That does not happen in this House. I say this with a good deal of regret--and I shall probably not be contradicted. There are many Members on this side of the House who agree with the amendments that have been proposed, and who would have agreed with the attitude I advanced on the Disqualifications Bill. But there is a Whip on this side of the House. Many of those to whom I refer--I know them well and have spoken to them on these issues--were "old Labour" MPs when I was in the House of Commons. I can think of at least half a dozen or a dozen who agree with the amendment. But, whatever they may think about the justification for the Bill, they will not be able to enter the Lobby in support of the amendment.
	The same is true of the Liberal Democrat Party. I spoke to a Liberal Democrat yesterday who told me that he agreed with the speech that I made on the Disqualifications Bill. He said: "I should like to support you"--and he put it very crudely--"but we are in bed with Blair". Therefore, the support for the Bill on the Liberal Democrat Benches does not surprise me.
	On this side of the House, there is the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai--who takes an interest in Northern Ireland affairs; and I am grateful for some of the very reasonable statements that he has made. But apart from those two, there must be many Members on this side of the House who have an opinion one way or the other on this great controversy that has been brought about by the proposal to rename the RUC.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has had some service in Northern Ireland. I do not know whether he had his tongue in his cheek when he said: "Isn't it a pity that there is no constitutional nationalist voice in this House?" I will tell him why. Although they have been offered seats here, constitutional nationalists will not come to this House. When I was a member of the SDLP, a constitutional nationalist party, there were some members of that party who took MBEs and OBEs; and, once they accepted them, they were dismissed and thrown out of the SDLP. That is one of the reasons why there is no constitutional nationalist party member in this House. I only wish that there were. I should relish sitting here with some of my former colleagues or other members of the SDLP who could advance the constitutional nationalist point of view. I do not blame this House for not being able to hear them.
	I am a Catholic, as I keep repeating. But even my intervention in this debate will be grossly misconstrued by nationalist politicians in Northern Ireland. I recently made a speech in Committee on this Bill and the next morning I was the subject of nasty cartoons in the press. I was classified as a Unionist. I was almost classified as anti-Catholic, because I supported the retention of the name of the RUC.
	Perhaps my reason for supporting the retention of the name is a heart-over-mind matter. I am prepared to admit that that may be so. But I have carried the coffins of so many RUC men who were killed by terrorists, both loyalist and so-called IRA. I met their wives and children, and I know how deeply they feel that they are being humiliated and demonised by Sinn Fein/IRA. I know how they feel. I was in their houses 10 minutes after their husbands were killed and sometimes five minutes after their fathers and their brothers were killed. I repeat--and, again, I received a headline in a nationalist newspaper for stating this--that, if it had not been for the RUC, Northern Ireland would have sunk into a pit of anarchy. However much I may be abused for repeating it, I shall do so.
	Who is to deny that, without the courage and resolution of the Northern Ireland police force throughout these terrible 30 years, civilisation as we know it in Northern Ireland would have gone by the board? Only last week, a bomb went off outside a police station in Castlewellan. Two RUC men were grievously injured; one lost a leg and is in danger of losing the other. At the time, everyone jumped to the conclusion that it must be the work of the Real IRA, a dissident republican group. But the police were able to issue a statement that the type of device used in the bomb was from the loyalist community. So loyalist dissidents, representatives of loyalist murderers, are now intent on killing the RUC.
	Seamus Mallon, who is a former colleague of mine, has said that if the SDLP does not get its way in the Bill, he will not call upon Catholics to join the new police service. I can tell Seamus Mallon--who is no fool--that whatever he may say, it will not determine one way or another whether Catholics will join the RUC. Sinn Fein/IRA control many areas of West Belfast, parts of Crossmaglen and many other areas of Northern Ireland; and the loyalists are in control of their areas in the Shankill Road in West Belfast. They are the people who will determine who will join the new police service. It will not be determined by any siren call by constitutional nationalists.
	All the recommendations in the Bill could easily have passed a Committee stage in this House in half an hour. The RUC itself recommended many of them. No one is objecting to the reform of the RUC. It has been in existence since 1920. I think I have illustrated in this House how it came to be demonised by so-called republicans. But its name has a symbolism.
	One Liberal Democrat Member has said that the symbolism of the RUC is offensive to Northern Ireland Catholics. But taking away that symbol will be offensive to Protestants--by removing the alienation of one community, we alienate the other. What does it mean to take away the name of the RUC? There will be many widows, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who will be grievously offended if the name is taken away.
	Again, when I spoke in Committee, letters were sent to nationalist newspapers saying: "Does he forget that the RUC hit him over the head with a baton when he was leading a civil rights march on 5th October 1968?". I do not forget that at all. O thought it very wrong of the RUC to attack me and others when I was engaged in demanding civil rights for everyone in Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants. But it is 30 years since that happened. Many changes have taken place in the RUC over that period.
	I believe that the RUC as presently constructed, together with these reforms when they are implemented, will turn out to be a totally different force from what it was under unionist domination over many years. On Monday of this week, a Catholic ombudswoman opened up her office in Northern Ireland for the purpose of looking into complaints against the RUC. I welcome that development; indeed, the RUC's Chief Constable also welcomes it. The RUC is not against change that will make it a better and a more acceptable force. By rejecting the name, we shall offend many, many people in Northern Ireland. It will not bring support from that section of the community which has been so opposed to it over the past 30 years.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, all the amendments in the group that we are now discussing relate to the name of the police in Northern Ireland. All the amendments would change the current provision in Clause 1. I should remind the House that the clause that is sought to be amended was tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party in another place and was accepted by the Government.
	All these amendments would mean that the police service would be known, for at least some purposes, by a dual name: the Royal Ulster Constabulary--Police Service of Northern Ireland. Much as I understand the feelings that lie behind that proposal, the Government do not believe that it is either a workable or the right solution. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has stated on a number of occasions the Government's view that introducing a dual name would not be good for the cohesion and unity and, therefore, the effectiveness of the police service. As I observed previously on 23rd October, I understand that that view is shared within the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Moreover, it would not be consistent with the recommendation in the Patten report.
	However, perhaps I may emphasise that I fully understand the conviction with which many noble Lords have spoken on this subject. The Government fully recognise that this is a deeply contentious issue and one that involves, for many, a painful change. The Patten report recognised that encouraging Catholic recruits to join the police service was not as simple as removing the Royal prefix or changing the name. Of course we accept that paramilitary intimidation has undoubtedly been an important reason for Catholics not coming forward to join the police. Those who have done so in the past have paid a disproportionately high price in attacks on themselves and their families. I salute their courage.
	However, intimidation is not the only reason. There are certainly other causes. They include lack of identity with the police; fear of loss of contact with family and friends; and lack of support and encouragement within the nationalist community. That is why it is so important that the opportunity is seized to create a more representative police force, and one that commands broad support across the whole community. Let us be clear about the prize. It is demonstrated by the words--important words--used in Committee in another place by Seamus Mallon on 6th June. He said that,
	"we do not yet have a police service that can belong to all the people. That is what I and my party want to achieve, and we have striven to achieve that not in the comfort of debate or theory, but in places such as Derry, the Bogside, south Armagh, south Down and west Belfast ... if we get the Bill right, I will go into the hardest parts of Northern Ireland and I will ask people to join the police service and to support it".--[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/00; col. 196.]
	Those words illustrate the prize, which will be in jeopardy if we do not implement Patten on this issue.
	Noble Lords have pointed to surveys that suggest that the Royal prefix in the current title is not a major deterrent. Like noble Lords, I accept that intimidation has played its part. But Patten said that symbols associated with one side of the constitutional debate inevitably went some way to inhibiting the wholehearted participation in policing of the other side. It is important to understand his conclusions. He did not recommend either no change or a complete change. What he did say was that the name should change, but that continuity should be recognised. That is what Clause 1 of the Bill now represents--continuity and change. It spells out that the RUC shall continue as the "Police Service of Northern Ireland".
	Some noble Lords have suggested that that approach dishonours the proud tradition of the RUC, or that it belittles the sacrifice that the police and all associated with them have made over the past 30 years. I want to assure the House that this is neither the Government's intention nor their view. Only yesterday the Government published the report by John Steele on the proposal for a new police fund. The Government made a very positive response. In welcoming the report, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that he hoped Mr Steele's recommendations would go some way towards recognising the profound debt that we owe to these courageous men and women, and their families.
	I referred earlier to continuity and change. The continuity comes from ensuring that the RUC is clearly incorporated into the new service in its founding legislation. That is what Clause 1(1) and (3) achieve. The name of the RUC will also be evidenced in the RUC GC Foundation, provided for in Clause 70 of the Bill. Clause 1(2) and (4) provide the clear basis for change. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has stated frequently, the new name--the Police Service of Northern Ireland--will be used for all operational and working purposes, including whenever and in whatever circumstances the police interface with the public. Lest there be any doubt, I want to emphasise that police officers recruited following the passage of this legislation will be joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
	The Government have had many discussions with a wide range of representatives since the Patten report was published. In all its consultations with the SDLP, the Catholic Church and other representatives of the nationalist community, one point has consistently been made to us: the name must change if we are to succeed in the task of achieving a more representative and effective police service. Doing that means creating a service capable of commanding the support of the whole community, and one which Catholics are prepared to join. That is the goal that the Government are working so hard to achieve. It is a goal shared by many--indeed, if not all--in the House tonight. In the Government's judgment, the amendments that have been proposed run directly counter to that objective. Although I respect the conviction with which they have been advanced, I would ask the House to reject this amendment.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have said so much in support of my amendments tonight. However, I regret that I cannot accept the arguments put forward by the Government. I seek to test the opinion of the House. In so doing, I invite noble Lords to heed to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, rather than those of a certain Mr Gerry Adams.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 198.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 not moved.]
	Clause 3 [General functions of the Board]:

Lord Archer of Sandwell: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Clause 3, page 2, line 15, at end insert (", the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms and the Council of Europe Declaration on the Police").

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, a theme which ran consistently through the previous debate and through all those in Committee on the Bill was that we need a force, which is now being created--perhaps, more accurately, recreated--to be representative in its membership of all the people of Northern Ireland and in particular of both historic and cultural traditions. It should be a force which a nationalist can join without diminishing his credentials as a nationalist.
	Throughout the previous debate and all those in Committee, noble Lords have expressed regret at the discouragement encountered by young nationalists who desire to enlist in the police. I share that regret. But those of us who wish the peace process well have two alternatives. We can regret it, leave it there, declare that the issue is insoluble and walk away. Alternatively, we can try so far as can be achieved to encourage the nationalist community--not the paramilitaries, as my noble friend Lord Dubs pointed out--in the belief that the force really is dedicated to justice without discrimination. Anything which will reinforce that confidence can only be of benefit to recruitment and to the peace process.
	My noble friend on the Front Bench will remember that in Committee I moved amendments to Clause 3 to add to the board's obligations a requirement to ensure that the police comply not only with the Human Rights Act but also with international human rights obligations. My noble friend replied that the number of human rights obligations which exist as actual or potential obligations in international law are so legion that it would be impossible to monitor them all in any meaningful way.
	Whether or not we have a listening Government, we have a listening Back Bench. Therefore, I have modified the suggestion which I ventured to make in Committee. I now suggest that there might be three specific international instruments, each specifying particular obligations and all of which, I hope, create standards which the Government would wish to see achieved and monitored. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Commission on Human Rights, the Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Committee on the Administration of Justice for the assistance they have given me with this theme and the measure of assurance they have been able to give me that it really would make a difference to the feeling in the nationalist community that it would be appropriate to enlist.
	The United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms and the Council of Europe Declaration on the Police consist of clear and specific recommendations. I do not believe that there is anything in any of them which we would not all wish our police to observe. If they were included in the Bill, I believe that it would achieve two things. First, I believe that any police officer of whatever rank would approve of all those recommendations if asked. But the problem is not when someone asks his opinion; it is when the pressures are on, when the situation is an emergency and when the chips are down that the test arises. It is then that words which they have been required to learn and note as part of their reading and training will register in what they do.
	Secondly, if hearts and minds are to be won for the process of supporting the police and persuading their sons and nephews to enlist, this amendment would send a message which might help in the winning. I beg to move.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I find this a somewhat offensive amendment. Once again, it seeks to bring aspects of extraterritorial jurisdiction into our affairs and I am in general opposed very strongly to extraterritorial jurisdiction. I am opposed to the way in which so many international bodies produce rules, laws and regulations which we are expected to observe without this Parliament having adequately discussed them and legislated upon them.
	I am sure that the noble Lord is right and that there is much virtue in many of the things which are contained in all these resolutions. I would much have preferred the noble and learned Lord to have set out all those good things in these resolutions on the face of the Bill. That would be the appropriate way for a sovereign parliament to legislate.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I suspect that there is an unbridgeable gap between us. However, would it offer the noble Lord comfort if the codes suggested enjoyed approval not only in this country but also across the whole civilised international community?

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am not sure that the United Nations necessarily always speaks for the whole civilised community of this world. It does not do me much good to know that some of these resolutions have been supported by some of the most repulsive regimes in the whole of this world. Of course they will support them. They will not do anything about them, as we know. But I believe that good intentions of this kind should be set out clearly on the face of the Bill.
	That is not just a matter of principle for me. It also reflects what the noble and learned Lord said. If the amendment is to have any effect, the words have to be clear in the minds of police officers on the streets. Can one imagine a member of the police force in Northern Ireland confronted with the situations which we have seen in Northern Ireland in the past? Standing there, suddenly there come before him, like the life of a drowning man, umpteen resolutions from the United Nations. He would see them all in his mind and suddenly know what to do! Of course he would not. But he just might if the matter was on the face of the Bill, having been filleted out and put into plain common sense language.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord again. However, would he settle for having these texts set out in schedules to the Bill?

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I would settle for having them set out clearly in the Bill, for us to legislate upon them and, if necessary, amend provisions, because I might not like every bit of the provision and this sovereign House has every right to object to some of it. I shall not detain the House longer. I think it wise that these points are made.

Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may put a different question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. When he replies, can he tell us whether the police forces of England, Scotland, Wales and the Irish Republic are monitored for compliance with the various codes and declarations which he extols?

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, with the Minister I was one of those noble Lords who criticised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, for the vagueness of his amendment in Committee. I acknowledge that he has listened to those criticisms. I agree with him that we all want and believe that the RUC--whatever it will be called--will follow very high standards on these lines. But I do not want to see them made into a statutory provisions for the reason that my noble friend Lord Tebbit summarised.
	The police in this country generally, and the RUC in particular, are already subject to a whole lot of restraints. They are, I think, the most inspected, examined, monitored and supervised group of individuals that we have, with many bodies looking at them continuously--both official bodies and unofficial bodies in the media and so on. They inspect their every action, rethinking over a long period every split-second decision if it goes wrong. If we overdo that, we are in danger of making their lives impossible. We should also remember that the terrorists with which this particular police force has had to contend and may well have to contend again do not follow any remotely comparable codes. On the contrary, their standards are appalling.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the amendment raises the question of applying international human rights standards to the police. I concede that we have come a little further in identifying which instruments we are talking about. For that I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell.
	However, to give one example, the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials refers to dozens of other international instruments. None of the three instruments specified in the amendment has been formally ratified by the UK or is legally binding in international law in the same way as is a treaty. The documents are aspirational statements. It is difficult to require in statute that the police should comply with them. It would also be difficult to identify the exact text of the instruments, because they are subject to change from time to time. We are still in doubt about exactly what standards the police are being asked to adhere to. That cannot be right.
	Any particular issue in these or other instruments that could help to inform the standards that police officers should strive to achieve should be made explicit. I hope that I can reassure my noble and learned friend that we are confident that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will comment on the issue during consultation on the code of ethics. We cannot accept the statutory application of aspirational standards for the police rather than clearly defined ones.
	We all agree on the need for very high standards to be drawn fairly and clearly to the attention of those who are asked to live up to them. This debate is about the best means of achieving that. I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend that we are at one in that cause and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the amendment was an attempt to answer the problem that many of your Lordships have repeated during our debates: how do we gain the confidence of the nationalist community--not the paramilitaries--that the police force will be concerned with human rights and equality? The alternative seems to be not attempting to answer that question.
	I understand the arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and I must agree to differ about the value of internationally agreed standards. This is not the first time that we have differed on the subject and I dare say that we will go to our graves on different sides of that argument.
	I confess that I do not know how many police forces are required to observe the standards, for which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked. However, I am pretty sure that hardly another police force in the world is confronted with so many problems as the police force of Northern Ireland. If it is a special case, we all understand why.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, if I were a policeman I would probably feel that I was a little over-supervised sometimes, but if I knew that the reason was that we were trying to secure the confidence of a section of the community that was currently doubtful about the force, I might consider it a price worth paying.
	However, I know when I am licked. I am grateful for my noble friend's assurances. No purpose would be served by seeking to persuade her to change her mind. I am sure that her comments will provide some reassurance to those who suggested that I table the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 [Provision and maintenance of buildings and equipment]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Clause 6, page 4, line 18, after ("may") insert (", for the purpose of its functions,").

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: It is vital to protect the operational independence of the Chief Constable in all his decisions. In the current policing debate, the Government have placed great emphasis on considering the needs of the community--or communities, if one prefers it that way--that are to be served and seeking to ensure a policing service that is consensus-based and enjoys the support and confidence of the people whom it serves and protects.
	To operate effectively, such a service must have transparency and accountability at its core. Under the current arrangements, while the Chief Constable is responsible for managing RUC buildings, strategy and general procurement, approvals must be sought from the Police Authority, which therefore takes ultimate responsibility for the provision of buildings and equipment.
	The amendments would give that responsibility to the policing board, thereby ensuring the retention of the existing system and continued transparency and accountability. It goes without saying that the operational management of the buildings and procurement strategies would remain the responsibility of the Chief Constable. The amendments are non-contentious and are not motivated by party political considerations. They would reflect best practice in England and Wales.
	Should the Bill remain as it stands, I ask the Minister to confirm who will enter into contracts on behalf of the police service, as it is my understanding that an individual--such as the Chief Constable--is unable to do so, as he is not a legal corporation, or, to be exact, a corporation sole. If that is the case, the policing board would inevitably have to be signatory to such contracts without having any accountability for them.
	Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would increase the policing board's ability to hold and dispose of land, not only for police purposes, but for its own purposes. That would be an important aspect of the board's independence, although it does not mean that it would be able to acquire land compulsorily for its own purposes. The power to vest land compulsorily should still apply only to land acquired for police purposes.
	The current Police Authority feels that being able to decide on its own location and retaining the flexibility to change that location is crucial to establishing its independence at the outset. There is no logical reason for the new board not to be permitted to hold land for its own purposes. As I have said, that will not apply to compulsory acquisition.
	I strongly urge the Minister to accept the amendments, which could only have positive consequences for the new era of policing in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in his reply I wonder whether the Minister can clarify something for me. In the Patten report it was recommended that police stations built from now on should have so far as possible the appearance of ordinary buildings. They should have low perimeter walls and be clearly visible from the street. I hope that any amendment that is accepted will not give the board the power to do that to police stations until the security situation has changed considerably. I cannot help feeling that I should feel extremely unsafe if I had been taken into custody and knew that it was only too easy for a paramilitary force which disapproved of me to get at me a great deal more easily in an open, cheerful, villa-like building.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. In particular I support Amendment No. 9, which appears to put the police board properly in charge of certain things which I do not believe chief constables should be asked to do.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, after replying to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I shall refer in detail to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. Perhaps I may reassure her, as I have done before, that all decisions taken with regard to security in Northern Ireland are taken in the light of advice given about the level of security that is necessary.
	These amendments have been debated before and the position remains unchanged. Clauses 6 and 7 give effect to Patten's comments at paragraph 5.13 of his report. Patten said that the relationship between the police and the board should be as between a service provider and a regulator, and that the previous arrangement, which conflated those two roles, was seriously flawed. It should not be imagined that the board lacks the means to hold the police to account in this area. The board will have detailed financial controls and is responsible for the acquisition and disposal of land for policing purposes.
	I can answer the detailed questions that were asked in relation to the point concerning control and power. Under Clause 7(3) the board can compulsorily acquire land for police purposes but not for its own purpose. It cannot compulsorily acquire buildings. The arrangements for the board in relation to land and buildings are different from those pertaining to planning. I can assure the noble Lord that under Section 5(6) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 there is no difference between the board's powers in relation to buildings and land. The board will be able to change location and will be able to enter into contracts on behalf of the police service.
	However, the noble Lord's amendment, and particularly Amendment No. 9, confuses the roles by seeking to inject the board unnecessarily into the management of police buildings. It would insert unnecessary additional bureaucracy and there would be no additional effect on accountability.
	The other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 11, are based on the false premise that the board's powers to acquire land and buildings for itself are somehow deficient.
	I hope that the detailed answers that I have given have helped to reassure noble Lords. Clauses 6 and 7 deal only with police buildings, and paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1 to the Bill deals with the board in respect of these matters. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that there is no legal difficulty in the board providing its own land and buildings. If the noble Lord has further detailed factual questions that he wishes to raise, I shall of course be happy to write to him. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may take her back to what she said a few minutes ago in reply to my noble friend Lady Park. She said that all security decisions are taken in the light of security advice from the relevant authorities. Perhaps I may press her a little on that point. During the time that I had responsibility in Northern Ireland, the formula universally employed was in conformity with security advice. Perhaps I may ask her--she may need a little time to consider this--whether the same applies today. In particular, will that formulation in conformity apply to the surveillance powers along the border in County Fermanagh and South Armagh?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, that changes to buildings are described in exactly the same way as are issues relating to security advice. All judgments taken by the Secretary of State are based on the best possible advice--in particular, that of the Chief Constable.
	The noble and learned Lord pressed me on the exact wording of the legislation with regard to the procedure for accepting advice. I should prefer to write to him on that narrow and extremely important point.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I believe that the Minister has given me the assurance that I need. It is not a matter of legislation; it is simply a matter of practice. If, on reflection, the noble Baroness finds that that is not the case, I should be most grateful to hear from her.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the enlightenment that she has provided. However, as she herself said, this is a very complex matter. Although I entirely accept most of what she said, I have a feeling that the issues are not quite clearly understood by the various elements involved in these matters. I shall certainly study carefully in Hansard what the noble Baroness said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
	Clause 7 [Acquisition and disposal of land by Board]:
	[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
	Clause 12 [Accounts and audit]:

Baroness Harris of Richmond: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Leave out Clause 12 and insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
	(" .--(1) The Policing Board shall--
	(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts; and
	(b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.
	(2) The Board may delegate to the Chief Constable, or another body approved by the Secretary of State, responsibility for the functions under subsection (1).
	(3) The statement of accounts shall contain such information and shall be in such a form as the Secretary of State may determine.
	(4) The Chief Constable or any other body to whom power is delegated under subsection (2), shall submit the statement of accounts to the Board within such period after the end of the financial year to which they relate as the Board may determine.
	(5) The Board shall send copies of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such further period as the Secretary of State may determine.
	(6) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall--
	(a) examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts received by him under this section; and
	(b) lay copies of the statement of accounts and of his report before each House of Parliament.").

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 stands in my name and those of other noble Lords. I raised this issue in Committee, but it is such an important matter that I feel I must bring it to your Lordships' attention again.
	My concern is to ensure that transparency and accountability exist in relation to police expenditure. The Government said that Patten was critical of the existing financial arrangements. Patten was critical--and rightly so--of the authority's role in supplying services directly to the RUC. However, that all changed under the 1998 Act. Since then, the role of the police authority has been the same as that of police authorities in England and Wales.
	Under the Government's proposals, the police budget will pass through the police board. However, it seems that the board will not have overall financial responsibility. I should welcome the Government's assurance that under the new arrangements there will be a code of financial management which is as robust as the code which is currently in place. In particular, will the new code recognise, as Patten recommended in paragraph 6.46, the importance of the board having a strong internal audit department? That will be essential if the board is to fulfil a proper scrutiny role in ensuring that money is properly spent and that the force is making the most efficient and effective use of resources.
	However, if, as the Government propose, the Chief Constable is responsible for the preparation of accounts, he will surely need his own internal audit function. Will that not lead to duplication? Is that really a good use of public funds?
	In Committee, I asked who would enter into contracts, given that the Chief Constable is not a corporate body. If it is to be the policing board--I am not sure what else it could be--should not the board be accountable for that expenditure?
	I am convinced that we all want to achieve the same end: to give the Chief Constable responsibility for day-to-day financial management and for the board to have a strategic role and to hold the Chief Constable to account for the use of those resources. But if the board is to exercise that important oversight, then, to my mind, it must have responsibility for accounts, along with the Chief Constable, as Patten recommended in paragraph 6.47. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 has been debated before in Committee. Clause 12 addresses the important but detailed issues of police accounting and audit arrangements. We are extremely grateful for the assistance that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has provided to us in discussing the detail of those important arrangements.
	Amendment No. 12 requires the board, as the noble Baroness very fairly said, rather than the Chief Constable, to keep proper accounts and records but enables the board to delegate its functions if it chooses to do so. That would continue the present position, whereby the policing board's chief executive is the accounting officer for the police grant as well as the authority's own grant which Patten said should be changed in his 43rd recommendation.
	The Government introduced the change recommended by Patten to require the Chief Constable to sign off the accounts in respect of the money he receives from the board. The Government support Patten's recommendation because it contributes to clarifying the role of the Chief Constable as the manager of the police service and the board as regulator.
	Clause 12 still requires the Chief Constable to submit his accounts to the board (not the Secretary of State) and Clause 12(2) makes it clear that the function is being exercised by the Chief Constable on behalf of the board. The board is not circumvented; its financial accountability role is not diminished; and it can still scrutinise the police accounts to a level it considers appropriate to discharge its duties. I assure the noble Baroness that there will be a code of financial management as robust as the present one. I assure her also that the Government intend the board to have a strong internal audit role. Indeed, the best value provisions of the Bill will enhance the board's ability to assess whether police expenditure is being made effectively, efficiently and economically.
	The board does not need to do the actual detailed record-keeping to exercise its role of financial accountability in respect of the police. The Chief Constable, under Clause 10, will have to submit estimates of police expenditure to the board for its approval. The money, under Clause 9, goes to the board to distribute to the Chief Constable and it will exercise detailed financial controls in doing so as the Police Authority for Northern Ireland does at present. That is not an arrangement which leaves the board without power. On the contrary it gives it control, which is one of the critical issues.
	I would also quote the Chief Constable's useful comments in response to Patten's Recommendation 43 which were as follows:
	"No objection, although this recommendation seems to be on the basis that the Commission regards such an arrangement as improving visible accountability. Under current arrangements the Chief Constable already formally signs off final police accounts. These are then consolidated with the Police Authority accounts and signed off by the Chief Executive, as the sub-accounting officer. As the police budget will continue to be delivered through the Police Board and this is the body to whom the Chief Constable is primarily financially accountable, no change is anticipated in the process whereby end of year accounts are submitted through the Board. It is accepted that the proposed arrangements introduce a formal process, through which the Chief Constable might be called before the Public Accounts Committee, although he undoubtedly could be so called under present arrangements".
	Noble Lords will see from that response that the Chief Constable does not believe that his financial accountability to the board is diminished by this change.
	In a moment, I shall deal with the Chief Constable contracting out, or who contracts, which is a question that I must answer in the course of my remarks.
	That change, albeit a small one, is part of the new beginning recommended by Patten. We must move forward and not simply stick to current arrangements because that is the way that things have always been done.
	As to who will enter into contracts with the Chief Constable, the board will sign contracts for the police as the Police Authority for Northern Ireland does at present.
	I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for raising those issues and, as I said before, for the genuine assistance which she has given, which we have found very helpful. I hope that she will read the detailed response that I have given in relation to this amendment and that, in the mean time, she will withdraw it.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I shall indeed read with great care the response that he has given. It goes some way towards making sure that the code will be as robust as the present one--he has reassured me on that point--and that there will be an internal audit role for the policing board.
	I shall read what the noble and learned Lord said with great care. I thank him for his very kind remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 15 [Default of council]:

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Clause 15, page 8, line 8, leave out ("section 14(1)") and insert ("any part of Part III of this Act").

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 20. Those all concern the district councils and the district policing partnerships. They have a single purpose; namely, to ensure that the councils and the district policing partnerships carry out what they are intended to do and, if they fail to do so, that there is some recourse. In its present form, the Bill does not achieve that to the extent necessary.
	Amendment No. 13 is designed to strengthen Clause 15. As it stands, the Secretary of State can compel a district council to rectify a default only if that council has failed to comply with the provisions of Clause 14(1) or Schedule 3. Our amendment seeks to change that.
	Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 20 relate to Clause 16 which is concerned with the general functions of the district policing partnerships. Amendment No. 14 is based largely on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I believe that it is positive to have the district policing partnerships obligated to formulate a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder. Surely it is important that that should be done.
	Like Amendment No. 14, Amendment No. 16 is drawn from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, applicable in England and Wales. What objections does the Minister have to increasing the role of district policing partnerships in that positive manner?
	Amendment No. 15 is a consequence of my objection to policing partnerships in the future acquiring a budget to enlist private security firms for policing functions. That should not happen.
	Amendment No. 20 relates to Clause 18 and is, again, in the same vein. If a DPP fails to meet any of its obligations under this clause, the board shall make such an order as it deems necessary to ensure that it complies with its duties in that regard.
	The amendments have been tabled for a particular reason. It is known that some of those district councils are within areas where councillors will be representing one side or another, or one paramilitary side or another. They may well wish to carry out those actions which suit them and distort the working of the police in their area. These amendments are tabled simply to ensure that if they do that, they can be brought to book by the police board. I hope that the amendments will be approved by the House and that the Minister will look at them favourably. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Amendment No. 13 would enable the Secretary of State to act if a council was in default under any part of Part III, instead of the current provision which gives the Secretary of State default powers on appointments.
	Amendment No. 20 would enable the board to make an order requiring the DPP to comply with its report-making responsibilities. The amendments seek to place what we regard as undue control in the hands of the Secretary of State or the board. The Government sought to put proportionate safeguards in the Bill, bearing in mind theconsultative and explanatory nature of these bodies, and the amendments would not meet that test. They are overbearing.
	For example, proportionate safeguards include the fact that appointments will be properly made or there is a default provision; appointments are to be made by the board, not councils; the board will be required (if government Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are accepted) to issue a code of practice; if DPP members fail to comply with their terms of appointment or are unable or unfit to discharge their functions, the board, or the council with the approval of the board, may remove them under Schedule 3, paragraph 7. As the Government said in Committee, we recognise the concerns raised about DPPs and have therefore put in place safeguards where we believe them to be necessary and justified.
	Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 seek to place a responsibility on DPPs to formulate crime and disorder strategies in their areas. While the Government have sympathy with the need to tackle crime and disorder in a more strategic way, our position is that set out when responding to Patten on 19th January; that is, that DPPs will not be given a wider community safety role until decisions have been taken on the Criminal Justice Review. The Government are still considering the detailed responses to consultation and will make a further announcement in due course.
	Amendment No. 15 has not yet been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and therefore I shall not deal with it. Amendment No. 17 would require a DPP to comply with the board's code of practice. DPPs are governed, even if there was no guidance, by their statutory functions. Guidance can only explain the functions. The Government do not think it right that the guidance should be prescriptive. Although a matter for the board, we anticipate that it may well apply differently to different DPPs. So in Belfast or Lisburn, for example, it may comment on the need to have local consultative arrangements involving solely business interests. There may not be such a need in every DPP area.
	The other amendments in this group have not yet been moved and I shall therefore not address them at this time. In the light of my remarks, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I listened to the noble and learned Lord with care and am pleased to note that in one instance he will be issuing a statement later. I hope that in due course the Government do not wish they had accepted some of these amendments, because they may have trouble with the DPPs. But that will be their problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 13A not moved.]
	Clause 16 [General functions of the Board]:
	[Amendments Nos. 14 to 19 not moved.]
	Clause 18 [Reports by district policing partnership to Board]:
	[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
	Clause 19 [Code of practice for district policing partnerships]:

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 21 I have to inform the House that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 22.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Clause 19, page 9, line 32, leave out ("may, with the consent of the Secretary of State,") and insert ("shall").

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21, it may be convenient also for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 22 to 26.
	In Committee on 23rd October the Government accepted in principle an amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cooke, Lord Rogan, Lord Laird and Lord Molyneaux, placing a requirement on the policing board to issue a code of practice to DPPs. Amendments Nos. 21, 23 and 24 give effect to that change. Amendment No. 24 also seeks to meet concerns about the overpowering role of the Secretary of State in consenting to the code. That has been changed to agreement.
	Amendment No. 22 is on the same point as my Amendment No. 21. I will not deal with Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 until they are spoken to later. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend is subsumed in the Government's amendment. We are grateful for that and I do not intend to move it.

Lord Laird: My Lords, noting the Government's Amendments Nos. 21 and 23, we appreciate the consideration given to the arguments that we pressed in Committee and will not be pursuing our Amendment No. 22.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
	Clause 19, page 9, line 33, after ("and") insert ("may").
	Clause 19, page 9, line 34, at end insert--
	("( ) The Board shall obtain the agreement of the Secretary of State before issuing a code of practice, or revised code of practice, under this section.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

Lord Laird: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Clause 19, page 10, line 17, at end insert--
	("( ) Nothing in this section shall require a district commander or his nominee to answer any question or disclose any information which conflicts with the general duty of police officers under section 32 of this Act.").

Lord Laird: My Lords, nothing in Clause 19 should require a district commander to answer questions or disclose information that would compromise his general duty as an officer. When one reads the general duties of a police officer in Clause 32, one sees they involve protecting life and property, preserving order and preventing crime.
	We cannot at this point be certain that all DPPs will have the desired goal of facilitating community consultation and reducing crime within the district in partnership with the police services. Therefore Amendment No. 26 provides protection to sensitive information of which the district commander may have knowledge and protects against DPPs or members of DPPs who wish to use their position for destructive rather than constructive purposes. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment seeks to protect the police from being required to answer questions or to disclose information which would breach their general duty in Clause 32.
	In Committee I explained that, while I expect the police to work with DPPs--indeed, I am sure they will want to do that--they are not required by the Bill to breach their duty in their dealings with them. The bodies are consultative and explanatory; there are no obligations on officers to answer specific questions. In the light of that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will not feel the need to press the amendment.

Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is there any harm in having a belt and braces safeguard by accepting the amendment?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is not necessary under the terms of the Bill.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said and will not press this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 20 [Police districts]:

Lord Rogan: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Clause 20, page 10, line 22, leave out (", other than Belfast,").

Lord Rogan: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
	As I have said before, there are many aspects of Patten and of the Bill which are positive, particularly those of an operational nature, and I have no difficulty in supporting them. However, there are areas of the Bill which I believe to be fundamentally flawed and which will not produce an effective police force. The proposal that Belfast should be divided into four district policing partnerships falls into that category.
	These amendments are designed to rectify that and to ensure that policing the City of Belfast is not balkanised into four sub-divisions, which sadly afflict too many parts of the city of which I am proud to be a citizen.
	In mainland terms Belfast is not particularly large; there are no more than 300,000 or so electors. While Belfast may currently be divided by the RUC into four local areas of command, they do not mirror the four parliamentary constituencies and they extend out far beyond the city boundaries.
	I have no doubt that 300,000 could be more effectively and efficiently served by one police local area command. I am concerned about the likely consequences which would follow the establishment of four local area commands in Belfast. Those four commands will all be mirrored, monitored, potentially dominated and influenced by district policing partnerships. Four for Belfast is just too many.
	At grass-roots level, the police would be put under intolerable sectarian and party-political pressures. If anyone doubts that, let them imagine for a moment just how the recent loyalist paramilitary feud in the Shankhill area and more recently in other parts of north Belfast might have been policed if policing was subject to local policing boards. The political representatives of the UVF and the UDA would have used their positions on the north Belfast sub-committee to bring pressure to bear on the police to take sides in their own internecine feud.
	One can scarcely imagine just how keenly the paramilitary front parties would support the police in their attempts to crack down on drug dealing and racketeering. Furthermore, the west Belfast sub-committee of the DPP would be almost exclusively republican nationalists; effectively Sinn Fein/IRA. Just how would that square with police investigations into the recent murders in that area allegedly carried out by their allies and the Provisional IRA?
	In a similar vein, the east Belfast DPP sub-committee would be almost exclusively loyalist and unionist; again with a substantial degree of input from the UDA and the UVF. The religious and political mix in the south of the city, an area in which I live, would at least ensure some measure of cross-community representation on the DPP sub-committee for that area, but there is no question that a city-wide committee would provide the best opportunity for diluting the insidiousness of the paramilitaries.
	A Belfast-wide district policing partnership would dilute the influence of parties whose support is concentrated in particular areas. While Sinn Fein/IRA might have near 70 per cent support in west Belfast, the figure is much lower across the city. Just as it would be wrong to leave policing in west Belfast in the hands of republicans, so it would be wrong to place policing in east Belfast in the hands of loyalists. The decent law-abiding citizens of these areas should not and cannot be abandoned to their fate--and what a fate it would be if we allowed that to happen.
	Perhaps I may leave your Lordships with this thought: the City of Belfast is divided enough as it is. It is scarred by peace lines and sectarian ghettos. Just about the last thing it needs is a police force divided into four and under the control of the malevolent forces which deal in the violence, fear and terror which have cursed its streets for too long. I beg to move.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. I believe that the police district commands, as they were taken on from Great Britain police forces, are defined as being areas which can operate under normal circumstances without outside support. In no way can one consider dividing Belfast, which is a small area, into self-contained units which do not need outside support. Any crime committed in Belfast inevitably impinges on all areas of the city. And as regards terrorism, police commands of that size undoubtedly need outside support.
	I therefore believe that Belfast should be one unit and controlled as such. There should not be so many police districts.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are linked and remove the provision that there shall be up to four police districts in Belfast as determined by the Chief Constable.
	There are currently four police districts in Belfast and I do not understand why the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, would expect the Chief Constable to have one when that is not what he wants. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I ask him to be aware that the current police forces are not confined merely to the city boundaries of Belfast. They spill well out into south Antrim and north Down. They are not confined only to the City of Belfast.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall return to that matter but move on to later amendments. Amendment No. 29 is related to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 in that it reflects an opposition to Belfast sub-groups to which the main burden of the speeches related. The Government were pressed on this issue during their consultations on Patten and the Bill and they sought a sensible solution. They take the view that there should be sub-groups, also referred to by Patten as sub-committees, but that these should be based on the police districts under Clause 20, which Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 attack. The sub-groups will match police districts; the members will come from the DPP; there are no special arrangements for appointments to the bodies from elsewhere; and the four are part of and will account to the overall Belfast DPP.
	I would further point out that the provision on the sub-groups reflects Patten; is for sub-groups to be in line with police districts; provides for limited functions so as not to detract from the overall DPP; provides for appointment to sub-groups from the DPP; and provides for the board's guidance to cover them.
	Under the Bill, for Belfast the boundaries of the police districts must coincide with the district council area, but within that the Government have concluded that it is right that the Chief Constable should have flexibility to determine the number of police districts up to a maximum of four. He has four at present and I do not believe that he has any plans to change them.
	We are aware that the sub-divisions are not entirely consistent with the Belfast council area, but there are only a few exceptions. That will not constrain the operational independence of the Chief Constable. In the light of that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, we are getting bogged down in geographical niceties. I suggest that the north Belfast police board stretches as far as Aldergrove airport and to Toome, which are hardly within the city boundaries of Belfast. However, I hear what the Minister said and with those assurances beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
	Clause 21 [District policing partnership sub-groups for Belfast]:
	[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
	Clause 22 [The local policing plan]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Clause 22, page 11, line 15, at end insert ("and shall consult any other bodies established pursuant to section 23(2)").

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 30 and 30A aim to strengthen the consultative process. In particular, Amendment No. 30 compels consultation with other organic community bodies in the style of community police liaison committees (CPLCs) which can and, it is hoped, will continue to operate. Amendment No. 30 may not be entirely perfect, but I believe that its intention is reasonable and modest. Amendment No. 30A is designed to make it clear that the police will retain the right to initiate any community policing consultation measures that they see fit, in addition to measures put forward by either the board or DPPs. I beg to move Amendment No. 30.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 30 and 30A. Under Clause 22, before issuing or revising a local policing plan the police district commander must consult the local DPP and take account of any views expressed. Amendment No. 30, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, which is identical to one tabled in Committee, would oblige the police district commander also to consult any local consultative groups set up under Clause 23(2). The majority of such groups, if not all, should be established under subsection (1). It may be that the amendment is intended also to cover that. Notwithstanding that, we do not believe that the police should have to deal with DPPs and all the local bodies set up by the board or DPPs. We believe that the DPPs should co-ordinate the views of the latter; and, as we said in Committee, if the board is convinced that that is the right way forward it can include such an arrangement in its code. The code can cover the arrangements for monitoring the performance of the police in carrying out the local policing plan. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord does not feel it necessary to press Amendment No. 30.
	I turn to Amendment No. 30A. I am happy to be able to reassure the noble Lord that the Bill does not prevent police consultation outside DPPs or other arrangements made under Clause 23. The Bill simply seeks to establish a framework for accountability and formal consultation as recommended by Patten. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent police consultation as envisaged by the amendment; otherwise, it would be impossible even for noble Lords to be consulted. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will not pursue that amendment.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those explanations. She has provided considerable help as to the giving of guidance to people involved at different levels. I believe that we should experiment and see how it works. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 30.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 30A not moved.]
	Clause 24 [The Secretary of State's long term policing objectives]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Clause 24, page 12, line 2, leave out paragraph (c).

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for informing me earlier today that the Government intended to concede the points raised in Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. Because I should like to speak later to Amendment No. 60, for the moment I beg to move Amendment No. 31.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships will be assisted if I speak to government Amendment No. 60, which is grouped with the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Government Amendment No. 60 is the same as an amendment which the Government did not move in Committee. It would add the ombudsman to the list of those to be consulted under Clause 53(2) on guidance on the use by police officers of public order equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked the Government in Committee on 25th October (at col. 347) to take more time to consider their amendment. He was concerned about the ombudsman having been involved in the creation of the guidance.
	For the record, we have since discussed the matter and looked extremely carefully at the noble Lord's points. In the light of those, the Government have considered their amendment further, taken legal advice and consulted the police ombudsman. Our conclusion is that, although we appreciate the noble Lord's view, the Secretary of State would be bound to consult the ombudsman, because inevitably she would clearly have a great deal of experience (from the investigation of complaints into public order-type incidents) which would help to inform--I stress that word--the guidance. I emphasise that the ombudsman is only consulted. Ultimately, the guidance is a matter for the Secretary of State; it is his guidance, not the board's or the ombudsman's.
	It is quite clear that the annual and special reports produced by the ombudsman are in the public arena. Therefore, it is inevitable that the Secretary of State will have regard to the views of the ombudsman and take into account all factors in drawing up guidance, which is ultimately a matter for him. I hope that, in the light of us being convinced by his Amendments Nos. 31 and 32, the noble Lord in turn will be convinced by government Amendment No. 60.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for the time that they gave me and my noble friend yesterday. A good deal of time was spent discussing these amendments, for which I am most grateful. I am not convinced by Amendment No. 60. However, I shall consider it further. I doubt that I shall return to this matter at Third Reading, but I do not commit myself to that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 25 [The Board's policing objectives]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Clause 25, page 12, line 13, leave out (", The Ombudsman").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Clause 25, page 12, line 18, at end insert--
	("( ) The Board shall establish levels of performance (performance targets and indicators) to be aimed at in seeking to achieve--
	(a) any objectives established by the Secretary of State under section 24; and
	(b) the objectives determined by the Board for a financial year under this section.").

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 33 and to speak to Amendment No. 34 in my name and those of other noble Lords. The annual policing plan will, as now, be a key document. It should set out for the community what policing service it can expect. Broadly speaking, it should be a contract between the board and the Chief Constable about the policing service that is to be delivered.
	Patten wanted to get rid of labyrinthine provisions, and we all support that. The aim of these amendments is to say clearly and simply on the face of the Bill what must be included in the plan. I am sure we all agree that there is no point in setting objectives as required by Clause 25 if we do not measure whether they have been achieved. Setting indicators and targets is crucial so that both the community and board can judge whether the police achieve them; they are an integral and important part of the planning process.
	Equally, there are some fundamentals that any annual plan, whether for the police or any other organisation, should contain. What, for example, is one to do? How does one know whether one has achieved it? What resources can one devote to it? That is all that Amendment No. 34 in my name seeks to establish. Clause 3 sets out the role of the board, while Clause 57 sets out in detail the issues on which the board must report to the community each year. Clearly, any board must address such issues in its annual plan. Recommendation 22 of the Patten report indicated that there was no justification for government to second-guess the board in these matters.
	Any government control over the content of the plan through regulations can lead only to the Government second-guessing the board. It reduces community ownership of the plan, diminishes the role and damages the credibility of the new policing board. I believe that the amendment has the support of all the Northern Ireland parties and could be conceded to the Government's advantage. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 have been debated at length. The Government have said that they will include these areas in regulations to achieve Patten's requirement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, said, we should simplify the legislation, which Patten rightly described as labyrinthine.
	In Committee we said that these regulations are available and show that there is little separating the Government in terms of policy from noble Lords who support amendments in the group. The question is one of form. The regulation sets out the detail of what matters should as a minimum be covered in the policing plan--not, I should emphasise, and I hope this reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, the actual contents of the plan--or in primary legislation. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation looked at precisely this issue and concluded in its recommendation,
	"that the great majority of powers in the Bill are appropriately delegated."
	The committee went on to suggest some changes which the Government have adopted.
	The noble Baroness appears to be confusing the regulations with the policing plan itself. It may be the way in which her points were responded to when the matter was dealt with in Committee. Responsibility for the plan remains in the hands of the board. The regulations prescribe the contents of the policing plan in exactly the same way as Clauses 14 to 17 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. The regulations prescribe only the areas which the plan should cover. The actual contents of the plan will continue to be determined by the board after consultation with the community.
	I could go through in great detail different aspects of the appropriate primary legislation should the Government accept the principle that primary legislation is the best means of setting out the detail. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, who has rightly and helpfully pointed out the importance of tying the best value performance plan under Clause 28 into the overall police planning process. The Government's draft regulations do that.
	We believe that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has considered this matter carefully. I hope the noble Baroness feels reassured by my reply. I apologise if earlier answers misled her as to the circumstances in which the government were making these proposals.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for her explanation. I am not entirely convinced by it because the Explanatory Notes suggest that the regulations set out only the minimum requirements for the plan. They appear still to give the Secretary of State more control over the police planning process than was envisaged by Patten. I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness says and see whether we need to discuss the matter further before Third Reading and in case there are points that, as she suggests, I have not quite understood or muddled up.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I stress that what I was saying was not that the noble Baroness had not understood points. It may be that they were not expressed clearly enough. I shall write to her if she would find that helpful.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, that would be enormously helpful. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me that assurance. I look forward to the dialogue we may have on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 26 [The Board's policing plan]:
	[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
	Clause 28 [Arrangements relating to economy, efficiency and effectiveness]:

Baroness Harris of Richmond: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Clause 28, page 13, line 20, after ("functions") insert ("and those of the Chief Constable").

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. Amendments No. 35 and 38 stand also in the name of other noble Lords. I very much welcome the Government's recognition of the board's primary responsibility for best value. I can see that the Government have listened and tried to respond to the concerns which I and other noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House raised at Committee stage.
	I have looked carefully at the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Minister. May I say that I fully understand the reasoning behind the Government's amendments. Therefore, I have tabled Amendment No. 37, which departs from the existing best value model elsewhere, but which seeks to provide the reassurance which may be needed.
	I do not believe that anyone in the country, let alone in your Lordships' House, would claim to be an expert on best value. But I have some experience as chairman of a police authority, albeit in England, of the operation. I hope that I can help your Lordships by sharing some of that experience. Best value helps police authorities to focus on corporate priorities and monitor the performance of the police force against them by asking meaningful questions. To do that, the police authority members need to understand the way that the service is structured and how in broad terms departments operate, while at the same time recognising the sensitive role it must play in appreciating the chief constable's operational responsibilities.
	That does not mean that police authorities should not question whether the chief constable is carrying out those functions in an effective and efficient way. Mutual co-operation and dialogue are the only way to achieve that and to make progress towards a properly accountable police service in which the whole community can have confidence. I assure your Lordships that best value reviews are not about reviewing or scrutinising decisions in individual cases; nor are they about investigating the chief constable's operational decisions.
	Best value reviews involve rigorously examining broad functions such as procurement, estates management, people management and relationships with partner organisations, training, core management and so on. They are about asking questions such as: what does one do; how do we do it; and how can we give the community a better service? That is what best value is all about. Clarity of responsibility is absolutely essential. We must not create the possibility that there is a stalemate where there is no agreement on the way ahead. I fear that that could happen if we adopt the Government's proposed amendments. That could only damage the credibility of both the board and the police service in the eyes of the community.
	My amendment adopts the approach and wording used throughout the Bill. Our aim is to achieve a compromise and strike the right balance. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I wish to speak to government Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 to 42. Other noble Lords have put their names to Amendment No. 38, which removes Clause 28(3) of the Bill. The effect of this is to give to the board the primacy for reviewing police functions to achieve "best value". There seems to be broad agreement for this change. I want to put it beyond doubt that the Government see the board as having the lead role in these arrangements, and the Bill will now reflect that.
	Government Amendment No. 38 goes hand in hand with Amendment No. 36. This requires the board to act together with the chief constable in striving to achieve best value in respect of police functions. But again I wish to stress that the Government see the primary duty to achieve best value as falling to the board in respect of its own and police functions. In tabling these amendments, we have been influenced by what the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has said to us. My right honourable friend Adam Ingram, the Minister of State, and I have found those discussions extremely valuable. There is now little between us, and the proposed provisions are very close to those in England and Wales.
	There are two reasons for Amendment No. 36. The first is management. We want the board and the chief constable to work together to achieve best value on the vast resources it takes to provide policing in Northern Ireland. We want the board to lead in taking forward the best value agenda, including in reviewing police functions. We want the board fully to involve the police. It is simply good management practice that the organisation under scrutiny should be involved in looking at the way it does things rather than have someone come in and tell it how to do things.
	The second reason for requiring the chief constable and the board to work together is that we have provided for the board to have very wide powers in this area. We need to ensure that a sensible balance is achieved between the chief constable's operational independence and the board's review power. Clearly, the board's review power should not extend to reviewing a particular arrest or second guessing the chief constable's operational judgment. That is not remotely what the best value provisions are about. I see that the noble Baroness agrees with that. The Government would not wish to leave any doubt that there are sensible limits to what should be reviewed within the context of the board's primacy in this area.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 35 and 37, which cover the same ground as the Government's Amendments Nos. 36 and 38. I have to say that we have moved a long way on the best value provisions. I think the noble Baroness acknowledges that. As I said earlier, I believe the noble Baroness shares our objective. We both want the chief constable and the board to work together to achieve best value and this will clearly involve the sharing of each other's views. It is our judgment that Amendment No. 36 takes better account of Northern Ireland's unique circumstances than does Amendment No. 35. While our goal is very much a normal security environment, until that position is reached we believe it is prudent to provide the explicit assurance that both parties will act together. That is, after all, an accurate description of how it should work in practice. Amendment No. 35 seeks to reinsert a reference to the chief constable in Clause 28(2). That is unnecessary as Clause 28(2) deals with reviews which are a part of the overall best value arrangements mentioned in Clause 28(1). Subsection (1) already requires the board to make best value arrangements in respect of police functions.
	I shall now turn briefly to other government amendments in this grouping. Amendment No. 39 to Clause 29(4)(c) requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to assess the reasonableness of the board's performance indicators and standards in relation to its own and police functions. The Bill as drafted caters only for the latter. This responds to a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in Committee. As I indicated at the time, I am grateful to him for highlighting the point. Amendment No. 42 makes a consequential amendment to Clause 31(1)(b) in light of that change.
	Amendment 40, to Clause 29(6), requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to publish his audit of the board's performance plan rather than have the board publish it as currently required. Again, that anomaly was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in Committee. Perhaps I may say specifically that his contribution has helped to improve the drafting of the Bill in this area. Amendment No. 41 is a drafting change.
	As is apparent, we have made a number of changes to the provisions dealing with best value. From where we are at the moment, we think that this is the right regime. But in the light of the assistance we have had from the noble Baroness, we shall consider carefully what she has said. That is not to give any suggestion that we will move. We think that we have reached the right place but it is only fair that we should consider carefully what she has said. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I think that he has got it right too. I am grateful to him for his remarks about my contribution in this area. I think that he is properly reflecting the special position of Northern Ireland, and particularly of the chief constable, at the present time.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his comments. We have indeed moved a long way. We are all learning about what best value means. I make no criticism whatever in suggesting that any help I might have given has not been understood. We share the same objectives. We may well differ on "act together with" and "have regard to". As the noble and learned Lord suggested, we may discuss the matter a little further to see whether before Third Reading we can agree on a form of words. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks. I shall read carefully what he has had to say. We shall probably be in dialogue before Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Clause 28, page 13, line 21, at end insert--
	("( ) The Board shall, in making arrangements which relate to the functions of the Chief Constable, act together with him.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Clause 28, page 13, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Audit of performance plans]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 41:
	Clause 29, page 14, line 18, leave out (", so far as relating to the functions of the Chief Constable,").
	Clause 29, page 14, line 30, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Comptroller and Auditor General").
	Clause 29, page 14, line 32, leave out ("(10)") and insert ("(11)").

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these amendments have all been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 31 [Enforcement of duties under section 28]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Clause 31, page 16, line 7, leave out (", so far as relating to the functions of the Chief Constable").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 38 [Attestation of constables]:

Lord Archer of Sandwell: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Clause 38, page 18, line 42, at end insert--
	("( ) Every police officer serving at present shall within three months of the coming into force of this Act, make a declaration in the form prescribed in subsection (1) above before a Justice of the Peace.").

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, these debates have become a constructive dialogue between the Government Front Bench and the various sections of the House. I hope that that process will not be interrupted at this point.
	Clause 38 prescribes the oath which every officer will be required to take on appointment. It sets out the standards which we would expect from a good and conscientious officer and it is confidently to be hoped that the police in Northern Ireland would accord us no less. The question then arises: why is it only to be new recruits who are to take the new oath? Surely the Bill is intended to represent a new beginning for everyone. That is what the Belfast agreement was about. So why not a new beginning for existing officers? Surely every member of the force would be happy to pledge himself to observe those standards. That is what the Patten commission recommended. In paragraph 4.7 the report emphasised the importance of human rights as the very purpose of policing. It then formulated the oath, which the Government have adopted in the Bill, and introduced it as,
	"a new oath to be taken individually by all new and existing"--
	I emphasise "and existing"--
	"police officers".
	Then, in paragraph 15.15, after emphasising that, to whatever other organisation an officer may belong, his primary loyalty should be to the police service, it states:
	"The new oath we have recommended (in paragraph 4.7) is drafted with this point in mind. All officers"--
	I emphasise again, "all officers"--
	"should in our view swear to 'accord equal respect to all individuals and to their traditions and beliefs'. This undertaking should have precedence over any other oaths or qualifications associated with other organisations to which an officer may belong".
	That is what was said by the Patten commission. It is not clear for what reason Patten's "new and existing officers" and "all officers" have now become only "new officers". The change is likely to be seen as part of a process of whittling down Patten, and that is hardly likely to inspire confidence in the new beginning.
	I should like to ask my noble and learned friend who, if anyone, objects to taking the new oath? If the answer is "no one", why not enact accordingly? I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I rise to say that I am slightly surprised that this amendment has been tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I do not think that it would in any way be helpful. For that reason, I should tell him that we on these Benches would oppose it.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 43, tabled in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, would require serving police officers to take the new "oath" within three months of this Bill coming into effect.
	The primary purpose of the declaration (or oath, as it is commonly called) is to confer constabulary status upon the individual who makes it. To require existing officers to take the oath would, in effect, entail removal of this status and would thereby be in conflict with Patten's clear recommendation that the RUC should not be disbanded.
	I can assure my noble and learned friend that the Government have already gone a considerable way in attempting to take account of what, in this instance, are conflicting recommendations from Patten. The provision was amended in another place to require the Chief Constable to bring the terms of the declaration to the attention of serving officers and to ensure that they understand the need to carry out their duties in accordance with it.
	I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reference to constructive dialogue. I hope that, with this explanation, I have been able to assure my noble and learned friend that such constructive dialogue continues. I therefore invite him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I was advised by my lawyer that I do not have to answer questions of that kind! I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, although he will forgive me for noting that he announced simply that he would oppose the amendment. He did not give any reasons for so doing. If he opposes the amendment, I suppose that I shall have to bear that with fortitude.
	My noble friend has exposed the difficulty here. I am not quite sure that I agree with what she said at the outset but, if that is the case, Patten has made conflicting recommendations. That is rather surprising because, until now, I have not seen that pointed out.
	I do not find the explanation given by my noble friend wholly convincing, but I do not think that this is the appropriate time to interrupt what, but for this amendment, would appear to be a constructive dialogue. I propose to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I shall not give an undertaking for future good behaviour. We have yet to reach Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 43 [Contracting-out of certain recruitment functions of Chief Constable]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Clause 43, page 21, line 5, at end insert--
	("( ) Nothing in this section affects any other power which the Chief Constable has to enter into arrangements concerning the discharge of functions of his which are not prescribed under subsection (1).").

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 45. Other amendments have been tabled within this grouping, but I shall speak to them only after they have been spoken to by other noble Lords.
	Amendment No. 44 ensures that the Chief Constable can make such arrangements as may be necessary with the recruitment agent for the discharge of functions other than those strictly prescribed by the recruitment regulations. Put simply, it is designed to ensure that the Chief Constable has some room for manoeuvre in the contracting-out of the recruitment process, and is not rigidly bound by the need to have every last detail set out in the regulations.
	Amendment No. 45 is a technical drafting amendment to Clause 46(8) to insert a missing reference. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, my colleagues and I have added our names to some of the subsequent amendments which have been tabled in this grouping. However, for the moment, we do not wish to speak to them because some developments have taken place since noble Lords debated this matter in Committee. For that reason, we do not propose to move these amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 44A to 44C not moved.]
	Clause 46 [Discrimination in appointments]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 45:
	Clause 46, page 23, line 22, after ("(1)") insert (", (4)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 45A not moved.]
	Clause 47 [Expiry, renewal and repeal of temporary provisions]:
	[Amendment No.45B not moved.]
	Clause 48 [Action plans]:

Lord Smith of Clifton: moved Amendment No. 46:
	Clause 48, page 24, line 32, after ("women") insert (", members of minority ethnic groups, disabled persons and members of other under-represented groups").

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 46 and speaking to Amendment No. 47, we seek to encourage the Government not merely to allow the Chief Constable to devise action plans to try to encourage more women into the police, but also for the action plans to extend to ethnic minority groups, the disabled and other under-represented groups.
	In particular as regards the case of the disabled, we see that developments in information technology and so forth in police work enable many people to work appropriately in the service who, in an earlier age, might not have been able so to do.
	If the Government were to accept our amendments to this new clause we would be extremely comforted by the Government's realisation that Northern Ireland is an increasingly multicultural society and that there are other groups who feel marginalised in that society apart from the two main communities. There are regularly around 12 per cent of people in Northern Ireland who do not describe themselves as Catholic or Protestant on census forms. In fact, Chinese is the second most commonly spoken language in Northern Ireland. It is time that the Government moved away from their traditional "two communities" thinking and recognised that there are many sections within the Northern Irish community. We are moving towards a more richly diverse society and that should be cherished and valued highly.
	There is marked under-representation of women and ethnic minority groups in the police. The current female proportion is 11.1 per cent; it has been estimated that the number of people from minority ethnic communities in the police in Northern Ireland is fewer than 10. The introduction of monitoring and action plans will ensure a focus on equality of opportunity and the introduction of proactive measures to increase the representation of all under-represented groups within the police. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, similar amendments were tabled in Committee, although they have now been extended to include, in addition to ethnic minorities, disabled people and any other under-represented group.
	It is important to bear in mind that the object of the Bill, first and foremost, is to give effect to Patten's recommendations. In the commission's estimation,
	"the imbalance between the number of Catholics ... and Protestants ... is the most striking problem in the composition of the RUC".
	It must therefore be right that this should be our central focus in this legislation. Patten's recommendation, which we have accepted, was that other under-represented groups, such as ethnic minorities, should be targeted by means of an imaginative advertising strategy.
	However, notwithstanding that, the Government have already recognised the issue, in equality terms, with the action plan on female representation. We should not lose sight of the fact that the Bill provides for the immediate application of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to the police. This places a duty on the police and other policing bodies to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity as between various categories of people based on race, gender, religion, disability and other distinctions.
	We believe that this provides an appropriate vehicle under which the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 can be taken forward. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdrew his amendment.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We shall wish to look in detail at what she said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
	Clause 51 [Notifiable memberships]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 48:
	Clause 51, page 26, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, it is not our intention to move Amendments Nos. 48 and 49.

[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Clause 51, page 26, line 15, at end insert--
	("( ) The Chief Constable shall publish any guidance issued under subsection (2).").

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 50 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57.
	Amendment No. 50 requires the Chief Constable to publish any guidance which he may issue to police officers in connection with notifiable memberships. This responds to points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in Committee. I thank them for their contribution. The theme of this provision--as with so much of Patten--is to enhance transparency and openness within the police service, and this will aid that policy.
	Turning to Amendment No. 57, in Committee we undertook to consider some means of qualifying the circumstances in which disclosure of information on notifiable memberships is defensible. This was in response to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, who is not in his place. The amendment makes it clear that the defence is not available if it is shown that the person concerned used his position in some way to obtain the information in question. This is an important safeguard to ensure that those who have access to this sensitive information do not abuse their positions.
	On the strength of Amendment No. 57, I invite the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Laird, not to move Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51:
	Clause 51, page 26, line 16, leave out subsection (4).

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I have even better news for the Minister. We do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 51 to 55, nor the Minister's favourite, Amendment No. 56.

[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 52 to 56 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Clause 51, page 27, line 16, at end insert--
	("( ) But subsection (10) does not provide a defence if it is shown that the person concerned used his position as a person to whom subsection (7) applies in order to obtain the information.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 52 [Code of ethics]:

Lord Archer of Sandwell: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Clause 52, page 28, line 8, leave out ("understood the code as currently in force") and insert ("have undertaken to be guided by the code currently in force in the exercise of their general duty under section 32").

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned to me yesterday that, unavoidably, he has to be absent. He greatly regrets it. He asked me to add my name to his amendment and to move it. I thought that I had added my name; however, it does not appear on the Marshalled List. However, I understand that that does not preclude me from moving the amendment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was kind enough to write out for me what he would have said had he been present. Perhaps the fairest thing I can do is to try to follow it as closely as I can without being tiresome.
	The noble Lord says that in drafting the amendment he has tried to follow as closely as possible the intention and language of the Bill. Clause 32 provides that police officers shall be guided by the code of ethics referred to in Clause 52. The clause states that the Chief Constable shall ensure that all police officers--that is, existing officers and new constables--have read and understood the code. The noble Lord seeks to strengthen this wording by providing that they must not only read the code, but must also undertake to be guided by it in all aspects of their general duty and functions.
	There is good reason for this. There are those who suspect that existing officers may read and understand the code but then proceed to forget about it. That is why the noble Lord wishes all officers to undertake freely to be guided in their work by the code. Impartiality and good standards of conduct and practice, mentioned earlier in this clause and in Clause 38, depend on it. Officers must not only be aware of convention rights; they must also be continually guided by the explanation of such rights given in the code. The noble Lord says that he wants to see a police service that is acceptable to all sides of the population.
	That is what the noble Lord kindly wrote out for me. I merely add: so do I. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in responding, perhaps I may speak also to government Amendment No. 59. Amendment No. 59 requires the board to review the steps taken by the Chief Constable to ensure that the code of ethics is brought to the attention of officers. This makes a link to the board's duty to assess the effectiveness of the code under Clause 3(3)(d)(iv), and thereby facilitates that role.
	The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, requires the Chief Constable to ensure that officers undertake to be guided by the code of ethics in carrying out their general duty. Police officers are already required to be guided by the code of ethics in carrying out their functions by virtue of Clause 32(4). So it makes little odds whether or not they undertake to be guided by the code; the fact of the matter is that they must be guided by it.
	I believe that the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, are at one on the policy; therefore, I invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, on behalf of the noble Lord, to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I had intended to commend my noble and learned friend's amendment, and I had ventured to hope that he might reciprocate. There are those who will be comforted by the explanation that he has given. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 59:
	Clause 52, page 28, line 11, at end insert--
	("( ) In order to enable it to carry out its function under section 3(3)(d)(iv), the Board shall keep under review the steps taken by the Chief Constable under subsection (8).").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 53 [Guidance as to use of equipment for maintaining or restoring public order]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Clause 53, page 28, line 22, after ("Constable;") insert--
	("( ) the Ombudsman;").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 54 [Regulations as to emblems and flags]:

Lord Desai: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Clause 54, page 28, line 26, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

Lord Desai: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 62 to 66, which all stand in my name. Noble Lords may recall that I had tabled these amendments for debate in Committee but at that time there was a sensitive situation regarding flags so I did not pursue them.
	The point is simple and, given the lateness of the hour, I shall be brief. The crux of the proposition is in Amendment No. 62. Clause 54 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe the design of an emblem or flag. My amendment says in effect that, in prescribing a design, we should be careful not to hurt the feelings of either community; therefore, we should avoid as far as possible association either with the state of Ireland or with the United Kingdom because either would offend one community or the other. Such a provision would allow the Secretary of State to create a wholly new symbol for a flag or emblem that would unite rather than divide the community. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 67, which has been included in this group. I shall not do so at any great length because I seem to remember making a rather lengthy contribution in Committee. However, what I have to say follows on from what I said earlier when we discussed Amendment No. 5. This is all about building partnerships and trying to get a police force that is acceptable to the whole Province and all the communities within it, yet one which is proud, which has a hat badge that it can wear with pride and which represents all of Ireland and the United Kingdom. For goodness sake, that is what the Good Friday agreement is about.
	The three major symbols for Ireland and the United Kingdom are the shamrock--we wear it on St Patrick's Day; the harp, in the national emblems of Ireland and also for Guinness; and, finally, our own Crown. That is what our amendment is about. We do not make any specific requests in this amendment as to what should surround the emblem or what shape it should take; or, indeed, for anything else. However, we say that here is an emblem of which the whole of Ireland can be proud. If the amendment is not accepted, in the light of my last few words when speaking to Amendment No. 5, I shall consider this to be another concession to the republican movement.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, I intervene briefly because I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. I can see no useful purpose, or any good reason, for any change to the cap badge and insignia of the RUC. The Patten report states in paragraph 17.4:
	"Many people in Northern Ireland from the Irish nationalist and republican tradition regard the name, badge and symbols of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as associating the police with the British constitution and state"--
	it is a very small minority who support that perception. The report goes on to say:
	"The agreement about symbols is not an argument about policing, but an argument about the constitution".
	There is no need to remind your Lordships that Northern Ireland is part of the British constitution. As such, the police force in Northern Ireland should represent the British constitution. It is clear from what has been said that there is a small minority of Irish nationalists and republicans to whom the Government are, once again, making concessions. What about the very large Catholic community and the Protestant community that support the RUC and wish for no change? Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that one of the aims of Sinn Fein/IRA has been to destroy the RUC. In my opinion, this Government are doing exactly that.
	In my previous intervention I drew to your Lordships' attention that, for any organisation, the loss of its title will lead to low morale and inefficiency. Therefore, to take away its title and change its insignia would destroy all its ethos. It is that very ethos, built up over so many years, that makes the RUC such an effective force. I do not believe that the Government understand in any way what "ethos" means to a police force or for that matter to military units. However, without it, I can assure the Government that such organisations become totally useless. It is for those reasons that I support the amendment.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not believe that the strength of the police in Northern Ireland would be weakened by the proposed changes in the way suggested by the noble Lord. The Government do not intend to destroy the police in Northern Ireland; but rather they wish to build on its strengths and give it a "new beginning", as indicated in the Patten report.
	Patten said very clearly that there should be a new badge and a symbol so that one could indicate that there was a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, while respecting the achievements and sacrifices made by the RUC over many years. Surely that is a worthy set of aims. The new beginning will require a new badge, but quite properly the Secretary of State has decided that he will listen to the policing board, among others, and seek its guidance and advice on what it thinks the new badge should comprise. It surely is proper to leave it to people on the policing board from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, from politics and outside politics, to recommend what they consider to be the best way forward with regard to the emblem.
	I refer to Amendments Nos. 61A and 63A in which it is suggested that the George Cross, so well deserved and earned by the RUC, should be included in the new emblem. I am not sure that that is a good idea, much as I was pleased when the George Cross was awarded to the RUC for what it had achieved and for the sacrifices of the past. But here we are looking to the future. I should have thought that it would not be appropriate to use the George Cross to symbolise the future but rather as a sign of respect for what has happened in the past. I hope that those amendments will not be taken further.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I support broadly the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and oppose Amendments Nos. 61A, 63A and 67A. I note that in Committee when discussing the cap badge and emblems of the RUC a number of noble Lords urged their retention. They did so on the grounds that, containing the Crown, harp and shamrock as they do, the existing insignia were neutral, being symbolic of the two communities by reflecting both the British and Irish elements that largely comprise the divided society of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said with passion,
	"it is all the more important to keep the badge and reinforce the continuity between the RUC and the newly named force that the Secretary of State is so keen to maintain".--[Official Report, 25/10/00; col. 349.]
	But that is precisely the point: no matter that in the abstract the current badge could be seen to reflect the symbols of both communities, the historical fact is--this is the point Patten made--it was seen, and would continue to be seen, in the Catholic community as representing the past. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, a new beginning requires a new set of emblems to symbolise that a new start is being made. It is an earnest of real intent. A new logo for a new launch is a commonplace in the worlds of industry, commerce and the voluntary sector, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Laird, would confirm in his professional capacity.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also said in Committee at col. 349:
	"There is no evidence that the badge is a deterrent to Catholic recruitment".
	With great respect, that is somewhat disingenuous. Without appropriate market-testing, we do not know that. It may or may not be a deterrent. As I observed earlier this evening, in my time in Northern Ireland I never came across Catholics who would encourage their co-religionists to join the RUC. Certainly some would be fearful of possible intimidation, but there was an overwhelming sense that a job in the RUC was inconceivable given a history, however recently improved, that included the notorious work of the "B" Specials.
	And yet almost every noble Lord wants to see a dramatic increase in Catholics working in the new police service. That will only come about if it is actively endorsed by all sections of the Catholic community--the Church, the SDLP and Sinn Fein. That will not be forthcoming unless they see a truly fresh start, and that means a new set of emblems symbolic of that fresh start. More importantly, it would lead to the development of a police service that could go into the existing "no go" areas, currently the fiefdoms of the Mafia that has grown out of the paramilitary organisations, where they would be welcomed by the majority of decent citizens. That must surely be our overriding goal.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I must admit that I probably move in lower social circles than the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. Perhaps for that reason, and as a Member of Parliament for getting on for 27 years, I have lost count of the number of occasions when I have been approached by young Catholics to provide a supporting reference for their applications to join the RUC. Parents would say, "Eammon wants to join the force. He hasn't time to come and see you. Would you prepare a reference? We'll collect it on Saturday". It was quite a common occurrence. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, but I have been a native of too long standing--80 years or so.
	Noble Lords who have today proclaimed the virtues of ditching the present all-Ireland emblem remind me of citizens of various parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in that area of London where I reside for four or five days a week, who confess that they have switched their votes to another party, "Because it was time for a change". When asked, "Change to what?" they reply, "We don't get involved in politics and so forth. It's just time for a change".
	So this is a change to what? We shall ditch something which should appeal to people in all parts of Ireland and Irish people abroad. Shall we switch, for example, to something as meaningless as a Sainsbury or Texaco logo? Is that the kind of logo to which we shall descend? If that is so, it is far better for us to forget about it altogether.

Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, urges us to leave the decision on any new emblem to the Secretary of State after consultation with all interested parties. That sounds reasonable in the abstract. In practice we know exactly what will happen. It will not be the views of the 80 per cent or 85 per cent of the population who are either perfectly happy with the existing insignia, indifferent or mildly opposed to it which will prevail, but those of the 15 per cent (at most) hard-line republicans, as has happened so often in the past few years.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am reminded of the earnest endeavours of British Airways when it got rid of the tail-fin emblem and produced a most interesting collection of colours which meant nothing to anybody and rapidly became extremely unpopular.
	I, for one, would be happy for the Secretary of State to have a voice on this. He might well understand that, as we have said, the harp, the crown and the shamrock are hardly to be improved on to represent all the three aspects of society in Northern Ireland. People are happy with it. I cannot believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, that a meaningless logo can do any good. It will probably do a great deal of harm. It seems extraordinary for us to reject something which represents the coming together of all aspects of Northern Ireland.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I cannot agree with Amendment No. 62. I believe that the emblem should stay. Failing that, we should not tie the Secretary of State's hands as does the provision in Amendment No. 62 that any emblem,
	"shall be entirely free of any association with".
	That seems ludicrous. The Secretary of State already has to consult the board, the Chief Constable, the police association and any other person or body appearing to him to have an interest. If we cannot trust the Secretary of State to consult them, I believe that it is wrong to tie his hands in this way.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is right that we should have spent a good deal time considering issues of symbolism. Names, emblems and uniforms are important issues for many organisations, but they are of particular significance and sensitivity for police officers and others who are called on to maintain public tranquillity and enforce the law on behalf of the whole community and who generate a strong collective bond and loyalty to their organisation in the process.
	Our starting point has to be the Good Friday agreement, where all the signatories recognise that it provided,
	"the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole".
	The dilemma which the Patten commission had to face--it is one with which the Government have had to grapple subsequently--is how to deliver that new beginning and achieve the cross-community support that we all seek without in any way diminishing or dishonouring the extraordinary achievements of the RUC, particularly over the past 30 years, when it has come under sustained and wicked attack from ruthless terrorist organisations.
	A decent argument has been advanced by several noble Lords that the root cause of the current imbalance in community support for the RUC has little or nothing to do with its name, badge or flag and is due instead to intimidation by republicans. Set against that view are the many representations that have been made to the Government that the existing symbols would continue to be a barrier to the recruitment of many law-abiding Catholics, even if paramilitary intimidation were a thing of the past. Whatever the precise truth, the hard question that we have to face is what will most effectively mark the new beginning that we seek and offer the best chance of securing it and achieving support from across the community.
	Painful though it undoubtedly is, the Government's conclusion is that a new beginning requires a new name and that a new name requires a new badge. If it could have been done otherwise without those symbolic changes, we wouldcertainly have done so, as the Secretary of State has said many times. We honour and revere the sacrifices of the past, but we also have to demonstrate the courage to start a new chapter with new symbols designed to command the loyalty and respect of all law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland.
	Undoubtedly, the best outcome will be if the new Policing Board can, on a cross-community basis, agree a new emblem and a service flag based on it for the new Northern Ireland Police Service. That is not an impossible hope. In as much as there are any precedents, they point both ways. On the one hand, the Northern Ireland Executive was not able to agree arrangements for flag-flying over government buildings--hence the flags order that the House approved last week. On the other hand, the Northern Ireland Assembly was able to agree an emblem that was acceptable to unionists, nationalists and republicans alike.
	It is consistent with our approach to devolution, under which local people attempt to reach their own solutions to problems rather than having them imposed by the Government, that we should be hesitant about prescribing the outcome in advance. I urge the House to exercise great caution over concluding that it ought to predetermine the outcome, particularly as that would inevitably be seen by one side as a partisan decision favouring the other tradition.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, may I suggest that a possible logo might be a crossed gun and ballot box?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that it is more appropriate for me to go on with my remarks following that intervention.
	Of course we have to recognise that consensus may not be achievable. That is why the Bill provides for regulation-making powers on flags and emblems. Those regulations will now have to come before both Houses of Parliament for approval. That is already a substantial safeguard.
	However, I recognise that in taking that power the Government have an obligation to say something about the approach that my right honourable friend intends to adopt if the relevant clause reaches the statute book in its present form. The plan is that the shadow Policing Board will come into being during January and that the new badge and flag will come into use in the autumn, when the first recruits join the new service. However, before that, when the recruitment process starts in April, potential recruits will want to know what has been decided. To allow the necessary preparations to be made, a conclusion on the issues will need to be reached as soon as the board can be formally consulted.
	Rather than confronting the shadow board with a blank piece of paper, my right honourable friend will discuss a range of ideas with it, consistent with the objective of securing cross-community support for the new service. It will be open to the board to endorse those ideas or to come forward with alternative proposals.
	If the board is able to reach a consensus on an emblem and a flag based on it that is capable of commanding wide support in the new police service and is also acceptable to the Chief Constable, my right honourable friend cannot conceive of circumstances in which he would wish to take a contrary view. That is the simple scenario, which, as I say, is not impossible.
	However, matters may not be simple. Therefore, in the absence of a consensus and in the light of comments received, my right honourable friend will need to decide what proposals to lay before Parliament. He has already made it clear that he does not accept that the new symbols must, as a matter of principle, be free of all association with both traditions. Equally, it would be entirely counter-productive to seek to prescribe symbols which have a high probability of being objectionable to one part of the community or another.
	So much is obvious. It is not whether we have the right to insist, but rather whether it would deliver the desired new beginning in policing if we were to attempt to impose something that sparked such controversy that it could deter one side of the community from joining or supporting the new police service.
	I recognise that what I have said will not be sufficient for those who want absolute clarity before the new board has had the opportunity to consider the options; nor will it be sufficient for those who are determined to hold on to the old symbols for reasons which I well understand. However, I believe that the process that I have outlined provides the best hope for achieving an acceptable and sensitive solution to this most difficult issue. Therefore, I urge the House not to insist on a change to the Bill.
	Perhaps I may deal briefly with the specific amendments. I have largely dealt with the points that have been made. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai--Amendments Nos. 61 to 66--would require that the emblem be entirely free of association with both states. As I said, my right honourable friend has made it clear that he does not accept that the new symbols must, as a matter of principle, be free of all association with both traditions.
	Amendment No. 67, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would have the effect of requiring that the current emblem remain the emblem of the police service and be included in the flag. For the reasons that I have already advanced, my right honourable friend has concluded that a new badge is required. Amendments Nos. 61A and 63A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others, would require that the design of the emblem and flag reflect the traditions of both communities in Northern Ireland and the award of the George Cross to the RUC.
	I understand the sensitivity of the amendment and the significance of the award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, I do not believe that it would be right to fetter my right honourable friend's hand in this way in the discretion that he might need in approaching the potential situation that I outlined earlier. Therefore, I invite noble Lords to reject the amendment.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, do the Government still believe that one of the best ways to take politics out of policing is to make responsibility for the design of this emblem one of the first duties of the new board?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that I have set out in some detail what the timetable will be.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate which I sparked off. My purpose was to return to this issue, discussed in Committee, but with perhaps a more constructive approach. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for the detailed answer that he gave.
	There appears to be a division between those who believe that all change is bad--I am reminded of what the Marquess of Salisbury said:
	"Change? Why do people want change? Aren't things bad enough as they are?"--
	and those of us who believe passionately that, if we are to make a new beginning, a change must take place. I am sure that the hands of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should be as free as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 61A to 67 not moved.]
	Clause 56 [Co-operation with Garda Siochana]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 67A:
	Clause 56, page 29, line 6, leave out from ("shall") to ("co-operation") in line 8 and insert ("promote wherever practicable").

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is the same as an amendment which we discussed in Committee, when we got into some slight confusion. Unlike the previous amendment, it does not touch on a highly sensitive matter but on a matter on which there is great agreement.

Lord Alli: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the position on Amendment No. 67. The noble Lord said that it was not moved. Is it, therefore, the property of this House?

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, no; it was not moved. That is it. I am dealing with Amendment No. 67A, which concerns a different subject; namely, co-operation with the Garda. The previous amendment was a much more partisan matter and the Government's insistence on dropping the present badge will be regarded as a very highly partisan decision by a large number of people, including myself. But I do not want to become involved in a discussion on that because, at present, I am moving Amendment No. 67A about co-operation with the Garda, which is not a partisan matter.
	We all wish that there should be the maximum co-operation. There is a great deal of co-operation now. In chapter 18 of his report, Patten recommended some specific measures for increasing co-operation. The only difference between us is the precise wording in the Bill.
	The Bill suggests that the board and the Chief Constable shall implement arrangements in pursuance of agreements between the two governments--the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic. However, Patten suggested that there should be agreements between the police forces. He used the analogy of the agreements that the Kent Police Force has with some of the continental forces. There are a large number of agreements and co-operation in different fields between the different forces.
	I am all in favour of police forces co-operating and, as a general rule, although it is not Holy Writ, as it were, the lower the level at which that co-operation takes place, the better. It was my observation, when I was responsible for those matters in Northern Ireland, that the co-operation at a low level between Garda individual police stations and the individual police stations of the RUC could be very good, and closer than the government in the South wanted it to be, as far as I could see at that particular time. Such co-operation is extremely good and it is that sort of co-operation which Patten is suggesting in terms of joint training and other such measures.
	I want to see not only co-operation with great agreements between the two governments--because there is a place for that; but the co-operation needs to be much wider and deeper than that, as Patten suggested. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, with his great experience in these matters, has said. Surely if this amendment is not agreed to, we shall effectively have political interference in the day-to-day or week-to-week operation of the police force. That is totally undesirable in any country. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say on the matter.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Cope, correctly, he said that he thought that there was, on occasion, the need for co-operation between the two governments and yet his amendment seems to preclude such co-operation which is, at present, provided on the face of the Bill. I hope that I have not misinterpreted what he said, but that is certainly what I understood him to say.
	Perhaps I may say why I am not happy about the amendment. Certainly, from my time in Northern Ireland, I recall that frequently there was good co-operation between the two governments on a whole range of matters. Indeed, there was also good co-operation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana. Such co-operation at both local and governmental levels seemed to me to be desirable in the interests of all the people in Northern Ireland.
	There may be occasions when it will be appropriate for the two governments to reach an agreement, particularly if, as seems likely, there is a need for legislation in the other jurisdiction. It would be sensible if there was agreement between the two governments so that the legislation in the other jurisdiction fitted in with the arrangements. That could deal with a whole range of matters, such as inter-service secondment, which has been discussed, or possibly pension arrangements. Those items would not concern the operational independence of the Chief Constable. I should have thought that that was a sensible arrangement. It is not helpful to have an amendment which would preclude the possibility of such an arrangement between the two governments.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I do not see why we need on the face of the Bill the possibility or availability of co-operation. I do not see why it cannot be on a much more casual and flexible basis when it comes to the two police forces.
	I accept that governments may need legislation to permit them to do certain things between themselves. But the police forces are already beginning to co-operate. There are already RUC officers at the Garda training school. The secondment about which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, spoke, does not need an Act of Parliament to take place. I do not believe that it needs such an Act of Parliament for that to take place between any states in Europe. We are talking about Europe as an open market, about co-operation on crime. Everything we do with the Garda should be taken within that context. I do not want to see such a provision on the face of the Bill. I support the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this clause is designed to implement Patten's recommendations that there should be closer co-operation between the two police forces.
	Amendment No. 67A was raised in Committee, when one of the central points of the debate seemed to be a concern, echoed by noble Lords tonight, that the clause would impact on the board's role and the Chief Constable's operational independence. We wrote to noble Lords reassuring them that the Government would not envisage agreeing to protocols without signing the board and the Chief Constable up to them first. So there is no question--I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Monson--of undermining the Chief Constable's operational independence in any way.
	Another concern, and an effect of Amendment No. 67A, was that the Government need not be involved; that protocols would be sufficient. But the example given by Patten in paragraph 18.6 of co-operation between the Kent Constabulary and neighbours in France and Belgium is backed by legislation made by government.
	Furthermore, the Government want to ensure that there is reciprocal agreement on this matter and that can best be achieved at this level. The Irish Government will proceed with arrangements for an intergovernmental agreement and for the appropriate protocols and will take all required measures, including legislative measures if necessary, to implement them. Of course, that is dependent on the final shape of the Bill before the House.
	I hope that I have managed to assuage the fears of noble Lords. I pay tribute to the work already being done in certain areas of co-operation. The measures in this clause would enable that work to be strengthened and extended.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, first, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that my amendment would not preclude any agreements between governments. It is not intended to do that and I do not believe it would preclude them in legal terms. The British Government do not need legislation to enter into agreements and treaties. Some people think that it should be required--and quite often legislation is necessary to implement our half of a treaty.
	My amendment would not preclude government-level agreements. However, it is intended to extend the provisions of the Bill so as to make clear that we want to see maximum co-operation between the police forces at every level and, for that matter, relevant services such as Customs and Excise.
	My experience may be a little different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. When I was Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, the Taoiseach was Charles Haughey, who was perhaps not so sympathetic to agreements between the two governments. Although there were frequent meetings and we constantly pressed them for further and better agreements and co-operation with the police, it was sticky, slow work. I am sure that that is not the situation today and that it is much improved, but that experience may colour my view.
	We are all agreed that, as Patten recommended, there should be co-operation at every level. Patten did not recommend that it should be confined to treaties and saw it occurring at all levels and in all ways. That is what we all want and therefore, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 57 [Annual and other reports by Board to Secretary of State]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 67B:
	Clause 57, page 29, line 44, at end insert--
	("( ) the effectiveness of district policing partnerships in the carrying out of their functions;
	( ) the level of public satisfaction with the performance of individual district policing partnerships").

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, reading the two subsections, I am confirmed in my mind that today and on earlier occasions the ground has effectively been covered. If we have not made headway, we have obtained clarification and we do not propose to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 67B not moved.]
	Clause 60 [Inquiry by Board following report by Chief Constable]:

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 67C:
	Clause 60, page 31, line 21, at end insert--
	("(1A) No inquiry shall be caused under subsection (1) if it relates to the conduct of a member of the police force which took more than the prescribed period before the date on which a report under section 59 was submitted to the board.
	(1B) The prescribed period shall be the prescribed period determined by the Secretary of State under section 64 of the 1998 Act.").

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the comments I made in respect of the previous amendment apply to this one. Many of the points which we have put before the House have been met. In the light of that and certain private discussions, we do not propose to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 67C not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Clause 60, page 32, line 15, leave out ("facts") and insert ("information").

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 69. At col. 377 of the Official Report of 25th October, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who unfortunately is not in his place, queried the use of the word "facts" in Clause 60. In the light of his concerns, we have looked at the provision again and concluded that the word "information" should be substituted in its place. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 68 and 69. They are intended to remove the connotation that an inquiry can be used to delve into the past to establish pre-commencement facts. Rather, the Government's intention in Clause 60(12) is to make it clear that an inquiry into a current matter can consider relevant information which predates the commencement of Clause 60.
	I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and other noble Lords will accept the change and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 69:
	Clause 60, page 32, line 16, leave out ("those facts") and insert ("that information").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: moved Amendment No. 70:
	Clause 60, page 32, line 26, leave out subsection (15) and insert--
	("(15) The costs incurred in respect of an inquiry under this section shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.").

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, when I raised the issue in Committee I was heartened by the Minister's signal that the Government would look carefully at any requests the board made for funds to cover the cost of an inquiry. If the board has met all the other stringent criteria for initiating an inquiry, I am sure that no government would lightly refuse to meet the costs, otherwise the board would be unable to exercise the powers which the Bill confers on it.
	I would welcome the Government's further assurance that they would be prepared to look at such funding requests as the need for an inquiry arises, rather than wait for the annual budget negotiations. That could significantly delay an inquiry and damage the credibility of the board. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have already said that they believe that resources should rest with those who use them. We shall consider carefully any request by the board for additional funding for an inquiry. The Government have shown that they are prepared to take on difficult inquiries but they cannot give the board a blank cheque. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that short response. Nevertheless, I believe that this is an important amendment to which we may return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 64 [Supply of information by Ombudsman to Board]:

Lord Rogan: moved Amendment No. 71:
	Clause 64, page 35, line 3, leave out ("as is") and insert ("or other information as might be reasonably").

Lord Rogan: My Lords, like the current police authority, the policing board will have a statutory duty to keep itself informed about the workings of the police complaints and disciplinary system. Amendment No. 71 certainly does not seek to erode the independence of the ombudsman or question the validity or integrity of the new police complaints system in Northern Ireland. The amendment is an attempt to rectify some flaws in the Bill.
	The police authority currently has access to a wide range of information, including completed files on cases of complaint, in order to carry out its duty. According to Clause 64, the only information that the ombudsman must supply is statistical. There is no obligation to supply any other material--for example, completed case files. That will create an anomaly whereby Northern Ireland will be treated differently from England and Wales, where police authorities receive information from the forces that they oversee. In Northern Ireland, however, with the change in the complaints system, all police complaints will be dealt with by the police ombudsman, unlike in England and Wales, where only the more serious cases are referred to the Police Complaints Authority. The supply of information will, therefore, be at the discretion of the ombudsman.
	Although it is established custom and practice in Great Britain that police authorities are provided with complaints files, I believe it is preferable if the Bill contains a requirement to provide information. If the board is to be a strong independent body in its own right, it is unhelpful if it must rely on the discretion of the ombudsman to provide the information that it needs to do its job effectively.
	Furthermore, one of the statutory duties of the new board is to ensure police compliance with the Human Rights Act. It will be unable to perform that function if it is entitled to receive only statistical information about complaints. Access to a broader range of information is, therefore, required. For example, what would happen if the board requested information other than statistics and the ombudsman refused to provide it? Such a turn of events, especially if made public, would hardly help to build confidence in the transparency and accountability of policing in Northern Ireland. For the reasons briefly outlined, I urge noble Lords to support the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 71 is on a theme which was also raised in Committee. The Government said then that, looked at from the board's point of view, it appeared to be attractive. But the Government must look at the role and functions of the two bodies, both of which are independent. The use of the word "reasonably" may be an advance on what was debated in Committee. However, the amendment still puts control of general information in the hands of the board, yet it is the ombudsman whom Parliament has decided should be in control of the police complaints system, not the board. The board has a different role, one part of which is to keep itself informed of police complaints. I can assure the noble Lord that the current provisions will enable that to happen.
	Patten made it clear that the ombudsman should be responsible for compiling data, and trends and patterns in complaints against the police or accumulations of complaints against individual officers and that the board should use the data it received in developing or reviewing policies and practices; hence the provision requiring the provision of statistical information. Patten did not suggest that the ombudsman should be subservient to the board and said that the ombudsman should have a dynamic co-operative relationship. This is what we expect will be the case.
	The board has a different role, one part of which is to keep itself informed of police complaints. The current provision will enable this. I know of no provision in the Police Act 1996 which places a duty on the Police Complaints Authority to provide information in England and Wales. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that I shall check that matter. If I am wrong I shall write to him.
	Another important point is that the ombudsman is already required by the Bill to supply information but the decision is rightly hers on what to send. We have no doubt that she will consult the board on what information it will find helpful to receive. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she can take into account in preparing the letter to my noble friend that this ombudsman--I am not certain whether we are being politically correct and should refer to ombudsperson--referred to in the legislation is not someone who is isolated like a High Court judge. She--she happens to be an ombudswoman--is already inserting herself into various groupings and committees and sitting in on discussions. The experience and wealth of knowledge that she will acquire in those fields could be of enormous help to the police authority and to the chief constable. We are not talking of classified and confidential information which she will acquire in the way that a normal ombudsman does; it is because she is--I think wisely--involving herself in all manner of discussion groups, in bodies and so forth, that I think she could be a great source of assistance to the bodies we have mentioned.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, is right in what he says. It is for that reason that we support Patten in its aim--followed through in the Bill--to ensure that there is constructive dialogue and that that is followed through between the ombudsman and the board.
	The noble Lord tempts me into the field of discussing whether we should refer to ombudsperson, ombudsman or ombudswoman. I should tell the noble Lord that during the passage of the Greater London Act we had a constructive dialogue on that Bill which has been referred to tonight. It progressed steadily during the course of the evening until two things happened at the same time: first, someone raised the question of chair or chairwoman; secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch--the noble friend of the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Glentoran--appeared in the Chamber and the debate that followed lasted three-quarters of an hour. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, does not want to tempt me into that situation.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, my own preference is to use chairman or chairwoman but not chair because that conjures up visions of woodworm.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, that was the kind of comment that sparked the lengthy debate. In asking the noble Lord not to press Amendment No. 71, the Government realised, in tabling an amendment in Committee to Clause 65 which adds subparagraph (d) to Section 64(2A) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, that it was a little less specific than it wanted to be.
	Government Amendment No. 72 seeks to remedy that by making it clear, as the Government said in Committee, that this was intended to cover the ombudsman's relationship with the commissioners and the tribunal under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. When we reach that amendment, I shall move it. Government Amendment No. 73 is purely a drafting change to alter a reference to the ombudsman in Schedule 1. I shall move that amendment too at the appropriate time.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I may well come back to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 65 [Limits on complaints and references to Ombudsman]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 72:
	Clause 65, page 35, line 34, leave out ("a prescribed person or body") and insert ("--
	(i) the tribunal constituted under section 65(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, or
	(ii) a person appointed under Part IV of that Act").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 70 [The Royal Ulster Constabulary GC Foundation]:

Lord Laird: moved Amendment No. 72A:
	Clause 70, page 37, line 6, at end insert--
	("( ) The foundation shall--
	(a) make provision to support the development of the RUC Widow's Association and the RUC Benevolent Fund;
	(b) make provisions for injured police officers, retired officers and their families.").

Lord Laird: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am conscious that events have moved on with regard to RUC widows. I have brought this issue to your Lordships' notice on many occasions. I had a sympathetic hearing from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who has been helpful in dealing with the issue. As a result of representations made on behalf of the widows, Mr John Steele, a very distinguished retired Northern Ireland civil servant, was asked to look into what could be done for the two categories of RUC widows: those who were widowed prior to 1982 and those who were widowed after 1982. Mr Steele has produced a report which I shall be looking to the Government to implement in full. In fact, I shall be looking to the Government to enhance what is proposed.
	While it seems on the surface that the payments to the widows are generous, I would have to put them into context. I have mentioned in the House on two separate occasions that one RUC widow has been widowed for 30 years. After 30 years' inflation, her pension is £134 a month. That is a shame and a scandal. It is an emotive issue. It has become a major theme of the Belfast Telegraph, a Belfast evening newspaper, and has now been picked up by one of the morning papers, the News Letter. Under Mr Steele's proposals, that widow would receive £1,000 per year for every year since her husband died. That is £30,000. That is £20 a week for the loss of her husband in most cruel and dreadful circumstances.
	On a night like this we debate matters of extreme importance. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland sometimes become a little frustrated with noble Lords who do not have the considerable benefit of living in Northern Ireland and therefore have not seen the work of the RUC and have not had their relations and next door neighbours--in my case, my boss at work--shot dead. In some cases they were mistaken for RUC men and in other cases they were RUC men. My next-door neighbour was one of the finest men I have ever met. He was shot by the IRA. Despite what has been said in this Chamber by Liberal noble Lords--I know personally the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and I know that he means well--I must stress that my next-door neighbour's only crime was that he was a member of the Roman Catholic faith.
	We owe an awful debt. I owe my life to the RUC, the police service which has looked after me. I feel morally bound to be on the side of the widow and on the side of the injured policemen, of whom there are many, far too many. There are men with no legs, men with only one arm, blind, deafened or mentally impaired. We owe them a debt which no one in this Chamber, in Northern Ireland or anywhere else could adequately express. It makes me emotional to consider just what we owe these people.
	I am grateful for the help given to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, through the John Steele review. However, my amendment seeks to take that help one step further. Clause 70 covers the establishment of a foundation to be known as the,
	"Royal Ulster Constabulary [George Cross] Foundation for the purpose of marking the sacrifices and honouring the achievements of the Royal Ulster Constabulary".
	My amendment seeks to add a subsection which would require that foundation to make provision to support the development of a widows' association and a benevolent fund. It would also make provision for,
	"injured police officers, retired officers and their families".
	My colleagues and I happen to be Cross Benchers, but we are also members of the Ulster Unionist Party. We are people who live in Northern Ireland. So far we have received only thin gruel as this Bill has passed through its stages. I should like this amendment to be considered seriously as a method of recognising the good people--the widows and the injured policemen--back home. We should demonstrate the kind of esteem in which this House holds that tragic but gallant section of the population, whose sacrifice cannot be measured. I strongly recommend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to express my very strong support for this amendment. I have had a good deal to do with the association representing disabled police officers in Northern Ireland. Many officers are tetraplegics or paraplegics. All of them suffer from terrible stress, as do their families. The children have to live with a man who may have no arms or legs. They have to see him living still in danger and still under threat. This group deserves very special recognition.
	That is particularly the case since Sir Kenneth Bloomfield looked into the issue of victims. Both his report and the government reached the conclusion that nothing could be done retrospectively over the issue of compensation. Many of those affected received compensation which had been fixed 30 years ago. They received less then than they would ever have received had they suffered from industrial injuries. They were badly advised. Most of them were poor and did not have access to good solicitors. Many ended up with disgracefully low settlements.
	Nothing can be done because--I can understand it--no government would be prepared to consider retrospective compensation. However, in view of the splendid gesture towards the Japanese prisoners of war, we ought to think carefully about a special, one-time compensation for those people. I would strongly support a special provision in the Bill specifically for those victims.
	A great deal of money has been spent on victims in Northern Ireland during the past three years--government money, EU money and private money--but, necessarily, an awful lot of it has gone not to the RUC and their dependants but to the people who put them in that situation--the children of prisoners. The children, of course, are blameless. Nevertheless, I know, for instance, that the DPOA wanted some computers which were being made available to victims for educational purposes. It was told that its members could not have them because they did not comply with one of the conditions--namely, that they had to have had an uninterrupted education. Most of them became officers at the age of 18 or 19; very often they were blown up when they were 22. They never had much chance to have an education. It is not that they had it interrupted--they just did not have it. But, nevertheless, they were excluded.
	Something very special should be done for this not very large and dwindling--because they are dying--group of people. This would be something tangible that people could see and understand.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and the sentiments expressed. I know John Steele. He was, indeed, an excellent civil servant and official in the Northern Ireland office. I have not yet seen his report in full, only a quick summary, but clearly it is important. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House a little more about how the Government have received the report and what they intend to do about it.
	I shall not try to gild, as it were, what has been said by my noble friend in support of the amendment, except to say that we all owe a huge debt to the widows and to the injured police officers--particularly, if I may say so in the light of our earlier debates, to the Catholic officers of the RUC. I remember several such officers with whom I became friendly, some in senior positions and some in junior positions. Life was in any case exceptionally difficult in those days if you were a Catholic officer in the RUC.
	Among other things, I remember one officer telling me that he could not have a parish life. It was necessary for him to go to a different church to mass each week. If he had gone to the same church with his family there was a possibility of someone seeing him there and then seeing him in his police role, and that would have led to him being targeted. It was exceptionally difficult from that point of view.
	It is true, of course, that the casualties and the murders among the Catholic officers of the RUC were much higher than among the Protestant officers. That is why there have been comparatively few Catholics in the RUC over the years. It is not only that someone is killed or wounded in an incident, there is the also the particular horror of knowing that a horrible death or terrible injuries have been deliberately caused by someone targeting the individual concerned. That adds an element to the wounding and death over and above that which might similarly have occurred in a car accident and so on.
	As to the details of Amendment No. 72A, I am not exactly clear what the foundation will do, but it seems to me that this might well be one of the elements of its work.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have repeatedly given their support to the sentiments expressed in Amendment No. 72A, which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Laird and Lord Molyneaux, and which was so effectively spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Laird.
	As we said in Committee, the Government have already fully met Patten's Recommendation 88 with regard to supporting the RUC Widows' Association with funding. This amendment will not add to what the Government are already doing in that respect.
	With regard to paragraph (b) of the amendment, I am pleased to refer to an announcement made yesterday by my right honourable friend in response to the Steele report. Steele was asked to review the Patten proposal for a new peace fund. We have placed a copy of his report in the Library. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Rogan, for their effectiveness in pursuing this issue, which led to the setting up of the Steele inquiry.
	The Government will now be taking forward implementation of this important report as quickly as possible. I know that that is my right honourable friend's intention. In the announcement that he made about the Steele report, he made it clear that the lump sum payments would be made to the widows of police officers killed by terrorist activity before 25th November 1982 without undue delay. I understand that he hopes to be able to make those payments before the end of the current financial year. He will also move to set up the trust fund proposed by Mr Steele as soon as practicable.
	In the interests of getting on with implementation, my right honourable friend has chosen not to have a formal consultation period so that it can be moved forward as quickly as possible. But I know that he and my right honourable friend the Minister of State will be glad to receive the views of any interested parties as to the form and detail of the fund. I am sure that he would welcome any further input and co-operation from the noble Lords who have proposed this amendment.
	The Steele report properly recognises the sacrifice of a part of society in Northern Ireland that understandably feels that its concerns have been neglected for too long. I welcome that recognition and I know that the House joins with me in that respect.
	Amendment No. 72A seeks to bring together the role of the RUC GC foundation and the trust fund to which I referred. The Government believe that the two bodies--and the interests of those they will serve--are best kept separate. As I have said, the Government intend to press on as soon as reasonably practicable with the implementation of the Steele report.
	The RUC GC foundation on the other hand will inevitably take a little longer to set up. A working group has been set up by my right honourable friend to come up with proposals. Clause 70 of the Bill sets out its general thrust, which is towards the professional development of police officers and innovations in policing. Representatives of the Police Federation and of the superintendents' and the chief police officers' staff associations have been invited to sit on this group and the Government look forward to hearing its views. There will certainly be a research element in its work.
	To conclude, the Government appreciate and share the sentiments that underlie the amendment. What divides us is the means rather than the end. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he aware that there is a body of opinion that has put forward a proposal that the foundation shall be supported by Royal Charter? I realise that he will not be in a position to give an answer to this specific point tonight. However, will he recognise that those whom the foundation is intended to benefit would receive considerable comfort if a Royal Charter were to represent the kind of support for the foundation that can uniquely be given by those means?
	In the light of the failure to carry an earlier resolution about the name of the RUC, it would be seen as of great importance if that could be achieved. I realise that the noble and learned Lord cannot give a specific answer, but will he kindly take note that there is this feeling?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do take note of that. I am aware of that feeling. It is not a matter for the Government; however, I hope that the Government will be able to respond and indicate their views in the near future.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I also thank the Minister for his remarks. I appreciate what he has said and I am very pleased. That is in no way complicated by my amendment. My amendment seeks to,
	"make provision to support the development of the RUC Widows' Association and the RUC Benevolent Fund".
	It is a process of linking those sections of our community who have made sacrifices to the fund outlined in Clause 70. Everyone recognises that RUC widows and those who have been injured and disabled have made sacrifices. We wish to link the association and the benevolent fund to the foundation established in the Bill,
	"for the purpose of marking the sacrifices and honouring the achievements of the Royal Ulster Constabulary".
	If we must have things in black and white and written in tablets of stone as regards the relationship between the Northern Ireland police force and the Garda Siochana, surely it is a very small request to ask that the sacrifice of those people back home, who were initially grievously hurt and injured physically and then mentally by the release, in many instances, of the murderers and the attackers--the terrorists--should be reflected in the clause. Is it too much to ask--it is a very small price-- that this amendment be accepted so that we may form a link in some way with the organisation called the "The Royal Ulster Constabulary GC Foundation" for the purpose of marking the sacrifice and honouring the achievements of the RUC?
	I do not believe that I am making an unreasonable request. It would be well received by the community from which I come in Northern Ireland, who have not gained much else from the past few days' activities in this House. Indeed, it would be received very well. I wish to test the opinion of the House on the amendment.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 134.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Schedule 1 [The Northern Ireland Policing Board]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 73:
	Schedule 1, page 43, line 2, leave out ("office as Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland") and insert ("the office of Ombudsman").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 74:
	Schedule 1, page 46, line 27, leave out ("after the date of his appointment").

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 relate to the removal of members from office on the police board. Amendment No. 76 relates to disqualification for membership of the police board.
	The amendments are clear. They follow through our determination to ensure in the Bill that we cannot have our police force run by people with criminal records. As the Bill is drafted, that is not clear. If Amendment No. 74 is not agreed to, one could assume that if a member had committed some heinous crime, had been in the Maze, or whatever, before becoming a political member (or whatever) of the police board, that would be all right. That cannot be so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, clarified that if individuals have a conviction of any kind they are disqualified from being members of a council or the Assembly for the full term of their sentence, assuming that they were released before the end of their sentence, plus five years. I do not think that that is good enough. We do not want people who have terrorist records on our police board--ever.
	Amendment No. 76 lays down reasonable conditions for disqualification from membership. They are very similar. If a person has been convicted in any one of a number of ways listed in the amendment, he has a criminal record, and clearly has no right to sit on a board in charge of a police force.
	It is late in the evening and I shall not repeat the arguments that we have made before. The bottom line is that we do not want any slip of the pen in the wording of the Bill to leave a gap that could ever enable convicted terrorists to be in charge of our police force. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I support the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has spoken to them with great restraint. Had he known when he drafted them that a so-called loyalist multiple murderer would be wined and dined in this building today, he might have used rather stronger language. I admire his moderation. That incident makes one wonder whether there is any limit to what can happen in the United Kingdom Parliament. I have been here for 30 years and I am beginning to wonder.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and I hope that he will not take no for an answer on the amendments. I have to point out that there appears to be a drafting defect in Amendment No. 74. It should include the word "committed". However, that is no reason for him not to press the amendment, because drafting defects can always be cleared up at Third Reading.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support the amendments. What the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland are being asked to put up with is unbelievable. The police are prepared in the course of their day-to-day duty to get injured in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, described or to lay down their lives for the safety of the people of Northern Ireland or of any one of us who travels there. We are asking them to accept that their rules and regulations can be laid down not just by people who have committed a normal crime, but by those who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes. That beggars belief. I cannot imagine what we are up to. It is staggering.
	The Government say that they want participation from both sides of the community, but do they honestly believe that they have to go into the criminal sectors on both sides to get it? If they believe that, they should go to Northern Ireland and see. Are they saying that they cannot find a decent Protestant or a decent Roman Catholic without picking up one of those who have been involved in the criminal activities of the past 30 years? We are talking about the type of person who killed one of my soldiers, hitting him in the front of a school bus full of children, chasing him to the back and blowing his brains out over the children--and he went away down the road cheering. We may know who he was but we cannot convict him. He cannot be said to have suffered battlefield stress from being in a so-called war. He went away and celebrated with his friends all night.
	I cannot imagine which way we are going. The Government have taken away the police's badge, their uniform, everything, and now they are prepared to put hardened criminals into decision-making positions. They insult the Roman Catholic population. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is not here, because he could say this 10,000 times better than I can. He is proud of being a Roman Catholic and I am very proud to have known and served with some excellent Roman Catholic police officers who have done their best and sacrificed their family life and their whole social being. It might be argued that it is fair enough that we have let these criminals out, but we cannot put them on the Policing Board. I wholly support the amendments and I am horrified by the way in which it looks as if we are going.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there have been consistent attempts to add provisions that would restrict membership of the board in a way that neither Patten nor the Good Friday agreement envisaged. The issue is one of inclusivity. The Government believe that those appointed to the Assembly should automatically be eligible for the board. Noble Lords disagree with that. We believe that the Good Friday agreement should be implemented in all its aspects, including policing reform and decommissioning. With regard to the latter, we believe that the IRA needs to re-engage with the commission to show that further progress will be made. However, this Bill stands on its own merits.
	I believe that the removal provisions in the Bill provide a strong safeguard. Unlike the police authority of Northern Ireland at present but as under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, members of the board must be committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
	The Government have listened to the points raised by noble Lords. We hear their concerns. However, having listened, we believe that the Bill meets the test of inclusivity in the Good Friday agreement while containing appropriate safeguards. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down--I do not know whether I have to employ that strategy more than I am allowed at this point in order to make a speech--does he consider that the concept of inclusivity properly extends to including the confidence of those who serve in the police service of Northern Ireland? If he does, can he imagine the consequence for officers who expose themselves daily to the risks that have been recited so often in this House? Can he imagine the effect on their confidence of having as participants in the board people who have committed the type of scheduled offence with which we are concerned?
	It sounds clinical and almost consoling to speak of the offence as "scheduled". I know that it is rather bad form to recite incidents that have occurred. However, I believe that in order to inject a sense of realism it is necessary to recite one or two such incidents from people's experience. I recognise that my own experience is minuscule compared with that of many people who have lived in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may take one example from either side of the community.
	I was present at the Heights Bar in Loughinisland a few hours after a terrible massacre had taken place of people who were watching a football match. It was perpetrated by so-called loyalists. They sprayed the bar and killed seven people, including Mr Barney Green, aged 82. The floor was covered with what appeared to be treacle, but of course it was not; it was the blood of Mr Barney Green and various other people.
	I take an episode from the other side. An RUC officer, PC Paul Slane, had both legs removed and an arm seriously injured by an IRA rocket installed in the roadside. The female police officer next to him was killed. That man survived and continues to serve in the RUC.
	How can members of the RUC be expected to have confidence in arrangements which include on the board people who have perpetrated, no matter how long ago, that type of outrage? That is what I ask the Government to consider. It really is necessary to move away from the nice, clinical language of scheduled offences into the reality of life and death.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place made clear that those who are considered for appointment as independent members of the board will, as applies to the police authority at present, be subject to character checks. Such checks will include an obligation to disclose criminal records. On a large number of occasions we have also discussed removal criteria for both political and independent members who commit criminal offences after their appointment.
	However, the Government take the view that those who have been elected to the Assembly have a right to serve on the board. That is consistent with the way in which they may hold ministerial office. As I have already made clear, if they or independent members do not remain committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, they may be removed. I believe that, as noble Lords know in relation to the Assembly, that is at the heart of the Good Friday agreement.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, we are talking about the police board.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I would remind noble Lords that we are on Report. The Minister had replied when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, stood up to make his intervention. Noble Lords should not speak after the Minister has replied.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, may I continue? How is it possible to equate the statements that, for example, Mr Gerry Adams and Mr Martin McGuinness have made that they are committed to non-violence with the fact that when the bodies were recently supposed to be being returned by the IRA, Gerry Adams, leader of the West Belfast Brigade, went round and told the people who might be getting the bodies back that they must receive them quietly and bury them quietly?
	Whatever those people have said in political terms, they are surely not fit to be in charge of the police and legal proceedings of the country, particularly since Gerry Adams has said that he does not recognise British justice. I can see that as a member of the Assembly he may have a valuable contribution to make. But that is surely absolutely different from being responsible for the policing of the country.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it would be helpful for the purposes of debate, and I hope it would be helpful for the noble Baroness, if I were to repeat what it says in the Companion about Report. It says that only the mover of an amendment or the Lord in charge of the Bill should speak after the Minister on Report, except for short questions of elucidation to the Minister or where the Minister speaks early in order to assist the House in debate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, seems to have a problem with that. Perhaps he would like to rise and make his point.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, this is an extremely serious matter. My noble friend is very well-informed and should be allowed to make her point.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, who is very well-informed and has made many serious and sensible contributions to the debate, has made her point. I am reminding the House about procedure.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, if the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will forgive me, I believe that that little intervention rather lowered the tone of the debate that we have been having.
	I have been asked by the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment. I listened to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and other noble Lords who have had great experience of Northern Ireland. How many noble Lords on the government side of the House are thinking through this for themselves?
	I understand parliamentary democracy. But I ask you all, when you go home tonight, to think about the truths that you have heard about the happenings in our country. And then I ask you to ask yourselves privately, with peace of mind, whether you would like to have one of those released terrorists in charge of your police force.
	I do not believe that the removal clauses are strong enough. But they are certainly better than the provisions in relation to disqualification. I shall seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 76.

[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]

Lord Rogan: moved Amendment No. 75A:
	Schedule 1, page 46, line 43, at end insert--
	("(v) a Minister in the Government of Ireland;
	(vi) a Junior Minister in the Government of Ireland;
	(vii) a chairman or deputy chairman of--
	(a) a committee of the Dail Eireann (House of Representatives of Ireland);
	(b) a committee of the Seanad Eireann (Senate of Ireland); or
	(c) a joint committee of the Oireachtas (National Parliament of Ireland").

Lord Rogan: My Lords, Amendment No. 75A stems from the Disqualifications Bill Committee stage on Monday 6th November. During that debate it was established that, via the Disqualifications Bill, a Minister of the Government of Ireland could sit on the Northern Ireland Assembly. By virtue of their being a member of the Assembly they would have the possibility of receiving a party selection for the police board via the operation of the d'Hondt system. Yet Ministers and junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive are expressly excluded from being on the police board. This simple amendment aims to address that anomaly. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 75A is to add to the list of offices which, if held, would disqualify the postholder from appointment to the board. It was raised on Monday night when we discussed the Disqualifications Bill. I can assure the noble Lord that we will look at this issue and talk to him about it before reaching the issue on Report in the Disqualification Bill. In the light of that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, in the light of those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 76:
	Schedule 1, page 46, line 49, at end insert--
	("(d) he has at any time been convicted of a scheduled offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 or Part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000;
	(e) he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not);
	(f) the political party of which he is a member is linked to any organisation which has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997;
	(g) he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; or
	(h) the political party of which he is a member is linked to an organisation that has failed to satisfy any of the four factors set out in section 3(9)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998").

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 76) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 116.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Rogan: moved Amendment No. 77:
	Schedule 1, page 49, line 28, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (4).

Lord Rogan: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 77, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 78. These amendments are of a pragmatic nature. Together, they would remove the detailed provisions that dictate the procedure for calling a meeting to discuss the possibility of initiating an inquiry. Surely, the details should be related to the meeting at which the decision to initiate an inquiry is taken. The current elaborate procedures in the Bill are totally impractical and place an unnecessary fetter on the ability of the board to call for reports and inquiries. It is the power to call for reports and inquiries which enables the board to hold others to account and thus creates transparency in policing.
	I suggest that a safeguard is already provided, in that a substantial number of board members must approve an inquiry before it is initiated. What is the value of that unnecessary and bureaucratic red tape? I urge noble Lords to embrace a pragmatic approach to the procedures by adopting the two amendments and creating a situation in which it is feasible for the board, where necessary, to call for that report or inquiry. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 seek to remove the provision requiring the chairman of the board to notify members of a meeting to consider a request for an inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, tabled similar amendments in Committee.
	The Government's view is that the provisions in the Bill, Schedule 1, paragraph 18, which are based on arrangements already in place in local government legislation in Northern Ireland--the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972--are unexceptional. The use of the inquiry power itself would only arise in grave or exceptional circumstances. It seems to the Government that a mechanism should be in place to ensure that all members are aware of meetings to discuss such important issues.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to the safeguards that are in place at a subsequent meeting at which a decision would be taken as to whether or not to proceed with the inquiry. We believe it is important that all members of the board should be aware of a meeting that is to discuss that possibility. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, not to press the amendment.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
	Schedule 3 [District policing partnerships]:

Lord Laird: moved Amendment No. 79:
	Schedule 3, page 55, line 39, leave out ("in the case of an independent member,").

Lord Laird: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 79. It is not equitable or fair that there should be a distinction made between those people who are political members or independent members of a district policing partnership. The amendment would mean that a political or independent member could be removed from the district policing partnership prior to appointment for failing to disclose a criminal conviction. I think that is important. We think that is important. It is difficult to see why there should be that distinction. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in this grouping I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 80, 81, 82, 83 and 83A. Several of these amendments stand in my name and the names of my noble friends. As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, has said, the amendments concern the members of district policing partnerships. There are two kinds of member. There are so-called independent members and so-called political members. Some of the restrictions on membership apply only to the independent members. There is no reason why they should not apply also to the political members.
	The noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 79, which proposes that a political member should not be allowed to continue on the board--by contrast with an independent member--if he has failed to disclose a conviction. I shall not go into the detail of the amendments because they are similar.
	However, I should draw your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 82. Under paragraph 8(2) a person is disqualified from membership of a district policing partnership if he has at any time been convicted of an offence and has had a sentence of imprisonment passed upon him. But that applies only to the independent members. So some of these terrorists and other criminals could be appointed to the district policing partnerships. This was discussed earlier in connection with similar appointments at a higher level. Therefore I will not labour the point. Given the horrific crimes for which some of them have been responsible I do not think that they are suitable to serve on district policing partnerships.
	One needs to remember in considering this that it is not just a question of helping to manage the police force as it might be in some part of England, Wales or Scotland. There are parts of Northern Ireland where the rackets are intense and exceptionally vicious. Many of the beatings and murders now taking place in Northern Ireland are connected with those rackets. They are entrenched in the community. They will have to be eliminated if Northern Ireland is to have a peaceful life in the future. If we allow criminals at that level to sit on the district policing partnerships, they simply will not work. What is more, they will help to undermine the police in all that they are doing and in their attempts to get on top of the rackets.
	Ten years ago I was making speeches in Northern Ireland in which I said that part of the momentum of terrorism was the politics of the situation but that another part of the momentum of the terrorism--that was the case even then but it is more so now--was the rackets and the finances. The Mafia started as a political organisation. It has not been a political organisation for a long time but it has had a serious effect on the life of Sicily and other parts of Italy and it has spread out to many other parts of the world over the past century. The paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide are of exactly the same character. They try to control different sections of Belfast. It is those people that it is suggested could remain members of district policing partnerships. It is quite wrong and very dangerous for the future of Northern Ireland.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I believe that the independent members are being discriminated against. I shall not talk about the criminal activities--I made myself clear during the previous debate about the board. The DPPs will replace police liaison committees. Are the same indiscretions permitted on those committees? The liaison committees have been particularly instrumental in bringing the two communities together in a forum where they have been able to discuss policing and local crime. It is intended that community co-operation should be improved. If we discriminate against the independent members and the political members, that will not be conducive to such co-operation.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as under Schedule 1 in relation to the police board, Amendments Nos. 79 to 83 seek to tighten the disqualification and removal provisions for district policing partnership members and particularly for political appointments. Similar arguments apply in relation to these amendments as applied on the group of amendments which we recently discussed. The latter is particularly relevant for DPPs where the powers are so much more limited in relation to the police boards.
	We must look at the safeguards which are in place and are in the Bill. For councillors, who represent the pool from which the political members are taken, there are already criminal record disqualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, adverted to those earlier. In summary, individuals would be disqualified if imprisoned for three months or more, whether suspended or not, until their sentence and then a period of five years had elapsed. There are disqualification provisions for independents too--a sentence of imprisonment, whether suspended or not. Both independents and councillors are subject to removal provisions under paragraph 7 of Schedule 3; for example, if they are convicted or fail to comply with their terms of appointment or fail to disclose convictions. It is also relevant that the board makes appointments, and the Secretary of State will issue a code on how this should be done. There is also the default provision in Clause 15 which we have already debated.
	As we said in Committee and earlier tonight, the Government believe that the Bill has an appropriate balance between inclusivity and safeguards. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to the CPLCs. These bodies are established by the police authorities. As far as I am aware, those CPLCs involve councillors being appointed without checks beyond those which apply when they are seeking appointment as councillors. Thus, in relation to the political members of the DPPs and the councillor members on the CPLCs, the same principles would apply as regards whether or not a person could become a councillor. Subject to the point I made about the councillor members of the CPLCs, they are not statutory bodies and therefore there are no statutory disqualifications beyond those that apply to councillors.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, did not speak to Amendment No 83A, so I shall not reply to it.

Lord Laird: My Lords, as the proposer of Amendment No. 79, I have listened carefully to what has been said by the Minister. I shall couple that with the fact that noble Lords on some Benches in this House have attempted to allow opportunities for the peace process in Northern Ireland to be enhanced rather than put under stress and strain, as it has been tonight. I wonder how some of the activities we have seen tonight will be reported in the Northern Ireland press, especially in terms of support for those people whose sacrifice has been extreme. I propose to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 79) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 106.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 82:
	Schedule 3, page 56, line 11, leave out ("an independent") and insert ("a").

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 82) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 104.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 83 and 83A not moved.]
	Schedule 7 [Transitional and transitory provisions]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 84:
	Page 72, line 40, leave out ("20") and insert ("21").

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 84 is a technical drafting point to fix an erroneous numbering reference in paragraph 4 of Schedule 7. That paragraph would then refer to Section 21 rather than Section 20. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Trustee Bill [H.L.]

Returned from the Commons agreed to.
	House adjourned at thirteen minutes before midnight.